Car Safety Belt Laws

[milefile]

To say that value is necessity, and that all things should be evaluated with respect to necessity is to say that nothing is worth dying for.

How so?

I would claim that there are principles (which you’ve said don’t exist in your world)

No I didn’t. Only “universal” ones.

What about freedom? Is that a necessity?

It is the necessity. And it is not something so frail and threatened that it needs to be protected. The same can be said about Truth. It is not a thing that anyone has or can give and/or take. It is simply the condition of life. Freedom is not a concept. It can’t be reduced to information. It just is and is defined by the experience of it at different times and in different places. What American politics has done by creating a synthetic condition and slapping the word freedom on it is not freedom. We say, “We are free from…” when we should ask “what are we free for?”

What about justice?
What about love? Isn’t that unnecessary?

Absolutely not. How could you imply that? Justice is simply an expression of necessity. Just because we have millions of documents that cloud the issue while attempting to describe and understand it does not mean that it has no bearing. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with laws, dying for your country, adversarial justice systems, etc. And your characterization of necessity as cold, dispassionate and empty is sad to me. The woman who suffered at the incompetent hands of her doctor sees justice in her huge settlement. The removed stranger who hears it on the news sees an excess, an injustice. That is necessary. This strife is what keeps things going.

Love is obviously necessary. Simply think of your mom. Or was that simply the necessity of instinct? Does it even matter? It happened. It worked. And the feeling, love, is what it’s called. Love is just another expression of necessity.

What about your dreams and aspirations? Isn’t that something worth risking everything for? Are they necessary?

What else is there? We all calculate what is worth what level of risk and make our decisions. Sometimes we are wrong. Some people more than others. It is necessity on the micro level.

If one person is without food and is near death, while another person owns (rightfully) food and is not near death. Would the first person be justified in taking the second person’s food because it is a necessity for him and only a luxury for the second person?

It depends whether you ask the first of the second person. Seriously. You are attempting to group a process with many possibilities together as one thing. Consider… The starving person steals the food and gets away with it. Eventually builds a life for himself and looks back at his days on the street and is grateful to be self-sufficient yet understands what was once necessary, but no longer is. Or… he gets caught and killed or imprisoned. Or… he fails and starves to death. Let me ask you: Which one of these scenarios is just?

 

[Danoff]

Milefile:

I’m going to try to unravel this.

[/quote ] To say that value is necessity, and that all things should be evaluated with respect to necessity is to say that nothing is worth dying for. [/quote]

How so?

Necessity is that which is indispensable (dictionary). How many things can you think of that are indispensable? Almost nothing is indispensable. If you are still alive, then everything else is dispensable. I’ll illustrate with this next example.

What about freedom? Is that a necessity?

It is the necessity.

No it’s not. Freedom is totally unnecessary. Millions of people live out their lives without freedom in many countries on the planet right now! Here’s a good fictional example, take the move “The Matrix”. It suggests that the entire population is without freedom, yet they live out their lives as slaves. A related movie here is “The Ten Commandments” (and of course the bible story associated). The Hebrews lived out many generations as slaves, but they lived.

How can something be a necessity if I can conceive of living without it (note: this doesn’t actually have to happen for this to be true, even though it does happen in our world). If I can even imagine a world where people could live, without this thing being evaluated, then it is not indispensable and therefore, it is not necessary.

I submit, that you would have to argue that no one is currently living or has ever lived without freedom to claim that freedom is a necessity. Take the former Soviet Union as an example.

How can it be a necessity if people live without it?

Love is obviously necessary

I would apply the same argument that I did to freedom to justice and love.

What else is there? We all calculate what is worth what level of risk and make our decisions. Sometimes we are wrong. Some people more than others. It is necessity on the micro level.

What else is there? Life without risk. Dreams that are not perused. You don’t believe that people exist in this state?

Freedom is not a concept

It is a concept, an idea, a value, a state of existence, an experience, a meaning, and a purpose.

What American politics has done by creating a synthetic condition and slapping the word freedom on it is not freedom.

I agree, that America is not totally free. That’s actually my whole point on this message board is to point out little ways that the American people are repressed and talk about the alternatives. So clearly I agree with the above statement not only wholeheartedly, but to the point of evangelism.

We say, “We are free from…” when we should ask “what are we free for?”

We should ask both, and more.

No I didn’t. Only “universal” ones.

You are claiming that principles can be applicable in one instance but not everywhere. In fact, you are claiming that no principles exist that are applicable in every situation and the following example is your attempt to illustrate this concept.

It depends whether you ask the first of the second person. Seriously. You are attempting to group a process with many possibilities together as one thing. Consider… The starving person steals the food and gets away with it. Eventually builds a life for himself and looks back at his days on the street and is grateful to be self-sufficient yet understands what was once necessary, but no longer is. Or… he gets caught and killed or imprisoned. Or… he fails and starves to death. Let me ask you: Which one of these scenarios is just?

Obviously the last two scenarios are the only ones that you mentioned that are just for specific sets of histories behind the events described. There are other scenarios that are just as well that have not been mentioned. What I was trying to show you was that there are certain principles that are not malleable. You, of course, come back saying that they are. In effect, what you say here is that it is ok to steal another persons belongings if you need them more than the other person… perhaps with the added condition that you feel remorse at some time in the future.

That’s absurd. What do you think we have laws against that for? No reason at all? It’s to prevent anarchy. It is to protect people who produce from looters.

You are admitting that if you were reduced to a state of starvation that you would resort to criminal behavior? Or are you just saying that it is ok to resort to criminal behavior (and that you wouldn’t)? It doesn’t matter. This is an example where a fundamental principle of life (don’t steal from others) gives way (in your mind) to necessity. I’m saying that me upholding the concept of not stealing is actually worth my own life. It’s worth dying for. Necessity would dictate that it is just for me to take someone else’s belongings in some scenarios because that is what is needed. I say that’s a sad and uncivilized way to live…

Principles are malleable…. Need is the only judge…. People that think like that are the reason we have laws. It’s a good thing lawmakers disagree with you.

 

[Duke]

danoff, I have to congratulate you here on an excellent defense. Having taken the initial shot, I found myself without time or mental energy to adequately return fire. However, your clear and concise explanantion has made it unneccessary. Thanks for covering me.

milefile, you're basically stating that need is paramount. You're saying it's OK for the pack of hyenas to steal the antelope from the lioness who hunted it down, rendered in human terms.

I disagree.

Human beings are separated from animals by one thing: principle. We have the ability to conceive principles and apply them. In fact, we must do so in order to survive, since we are slow, weak, weaponless, and vulnerable in our natural state. That is simply the tool with which we are provided. It is not a fundamental reversal of the laws of nature.

Nothing in nature guarantees the survival of an individual, except its own ability. The need of one member of a pride of lions is not placed over the need of another, more able lion. The lions have equivalent needs: 20 pounds of antelop a day. They have differing ability to provide for that need: the better one grows strong and inherits leadership of the pack, the other goes away. That's not a value judgement. That's a natural principle.

The point is, that when you make the need itself paramount, every human being is reduced to a value judgement. Is my life worth more than yours? Does that justify me taking food away from you and eating it? You have it and I don't - a natural principle, a fact. I have a choice: grow, hunt, or forage for food elsewhere - or give you something you value in exchange for something I value. I need food very much. But stealing it makes me a hyena, not a lion... and leaves me victim to the next set of hungry jackals that happens along.

Institutionalizing need as the paramount principle reduces mankind to the dog-eat-dog existence you seem to despise so much. Don't feel bad - two thirds of the world hasn't figured this out yet, either.

You need food, I need food... who is more worthy? Or, given the state of luxury that mankind's principles have earned for us, look at it more abstractly: does your kid need braces more than my kid needs a year at private school? Removing the principle of the individual and inserting the principle of need means an entire life built around impossible, subjective decisions like that. How can you decide? Who gets to make that decision? When need decides, not right, then every person in the world becomes enslaved to every other person. Need holds the gun, need uses the gun, and need distributes the spoils. Note, however, that guns are notoriously poor at producing anything but death. So what happens when all that's left is guns?

By asserting the right of the individual as primary, however, that whole problem and question disappears. Poof. Gone. I need things in varying degrees. I want things in varying degrees. I earn what I am able to in order to satisfy those needs and wants, with my ability determining the degree to which I satisfy my needs and wants. I am enslaved to no one but myself... and I can choose to end that enslavement at any time, by ceasing to exist.

Saying that every human being has a right to have its needs satisfied is like saying every lion has a right to an antelope. But then, what does the antelope have a right to?

 

[milefile]

Danoff, I’m not going to dissect your post that dissects my post. That has a life span of about two posts.

We are discussing different things. You go to the dictionary to get your definition of necessity. So in that sense your idea of necessity is correct, in the same sense that 2+2=4. However it should be obvious to you by now that the necessity I am talking about is manifold and relates to moments. By moment I don’t mean the duration between the end of one second and the beginning of the next. There are moments in one’s life, moments in history, decisive moments. They may be less than a second, an hour or two, a few days or months, or generations in duration. For instance, a war is considered to be a decisive moment in history (which brings me back to a question I asked earlier that you never answered for me: do you understand necessity in the context of history?). We say that Rome “fell.” Of course we know that it declined over a long period of time and its demise was a series of events. It was obviously necessary for this to happen, in order for the next thing to happen. The same holds true for our time, and our individual lives. We strive for a good life and think we know what that is, or, think we know what is necessary for life to be good. Nobody strives for a bad life. In our time and place we define a good life in many ways including but not limited to free, content, prosperous, happy, loved, just, etc. But you say these things are not necessary. And that is correct, in a mathematical sense. My heart will continue to beat even if it is broken and devoid of love. I will wake up even if my days are enslaved. But necessity is not an empty concept.

It was and is necessary that injustice occur. Enslaved people must become free; that necessity drives them. And it is a base necessity. But what about the slave’s master? His necessity is decadent, frivolous… to become richer, to be more cruel. When the slave becomes like his master he has the power to become free himself. And the master is consumed in this transaction. The excess strength in his decadence is used up in the advent of freedom for somebody new. Usually they are killed. Marie Antoinette. Mussolini. What would our Western history be like without these great atrocities? Or victories?

When there is nothing to strive for life becomes stagnant, pointless, and decadent. Necessity becomes an empty concept. This can be applied to humans and to individual cells. It is proven by the fact that when an organism reaches it’s highest state, it begins to die. It becomes food for other organisms that will all do the same thing, on different levels; humans are bound by this necessity and our synthetic expressions of “life,” i.e. work, technology, politics, etc., are as necessary to our lives as protein is to a cell. Unless it is tenable to you that we humans go back to the trees, flinging crap at each other.

Life’s necessity it to constantly overcome itself. All our efforts only serve to try and organize it. Human life is the organization of chaos. Justice, Love, and Freedom are all attempts at this basic necessity. Your statements prove how destructive the current way of doing it is. How else could you say that Freedom and Justice and Love are not necessary? What they name must be concealed to you.

**And just like my question about understanding necessity in the context of history, you just didn’t answer my hypothetical regarding the starving man. Why can’t you just answer? Which scenario is just? If there are more scenarios lets hear them. But please don’t just blow it off.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke


Human beings are separated from animals by one thing: principle.

No. We are separated by from other animals by abstraction. A priciple is just one kind of abstraction, and not even a really good one. People will also use the words language and consciousness to describe the distinction. Whatever. They all point to the same thing. Even still, a principle is only a derivative result of other things and gets more credit than it deserves, which wouldn't be so bad, except any understanding of the essence of the principles are lost. So we invent things like "a priori" and "thou shalt."

At least this discussion has brought us close to one true thing about human life: that morality is the biggest problem with, and danger to, our species.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
Consider… The starving person steals the food and gets away with it. Eventually builds a life for himself and looks back at his days on the street and is grateful to be self-sufficient yet understands what was once necessary, but no longer is. Or… he gets caught and killed or imprisoned. Or… he fails and starves to death. Let me ask you: Which one of these scenarios is just?

I'll answer on danoff's behalf. If I am incorrect in this answer, I invite him to correct me.

I will speak of scenarios as well: assuming that the person who originally owned the food came by it honestly - by growing it, hunting for it, or trading for it: then it is entirely just that the second person, who apparently cannot do the same for himself, starves to death.

That's not to say that this is the only possible outcome.

Consider this scenario: instead of stealing my food, you come to me and offer to work for me in exchange for my excess. You are too weak to work due to near-starvation, but since we are both people of concrete principle, I can trust you when you make this offer. Thus, I feed you for a week without return, while your health improves. Then, you begin to help me grow food, and we grow twice as much together as I did alone, including the surplus. Thus, the same two people have gone from having one-and-a-half rations of food to having three rations of food. And no one was the victim.

This is not an unrealistic scenario. But now let's explain where the necessity of historical context comes into it: where, historically, some third person comes along with a gun, and decides that the extra one-and-a-half ration you and I are now producing are needed to feed him, his wife, and their kid... none of whom are now required to meet their own needs, since you and I are required to meet them on their behalf.

Note that the "necessity of historical context" is in direct opposition to the "concrete principle". Note also the outcome.

You state that life needs to strive. Agreed, at face value. Life must try to support itself and increase itself, or it dies out. But to expand that to freedom, love, etc. is to go off at a tangent, and an incorrect one at that. The fact that human beings have a right to pursue these things does not logically mean that human beings need to pursue these things. It just doesn't.

You further state that the struggle of freedom vs. tyranny, etc. is necessary so that life has something to strive against. You're concluding that since this has happened through human history that it must happen - Good must have Evil to contrast it, or Good will wither.

How very Postmodern of you.

If all are people of concrete principles, Good principles, nothing prevents us from striving for Better. If all deal honestly and fairly, and work to provide for themselves, can't we strive to improve our situation continually? Can't we strive to improve the beauty of our works, the learning and intelligence of our children, the standard of living of our families, the reach of our species beyond the planet we currently occupy?

There are plenty of things to strive for rather than human evil. We are not doomed to be some collective Sysyphus, rolling our boulder of Good to the top of the hill so Evil can knock it down again and give something to strive for again. Again, you are mistaken in the assumption that because this does happen it must happen.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile No. We are separated by from other animals by abstraction. A priciple is just one kind of abstraction, and not even a really good one. People will also use the words language and consciousness to describe the distinction. Whatever. They all point to the same thing. Even still, a principle is only a derivative result of other things and gets more credit than it deserves, which wouldn't be so bad, except any understanding of the essence of the principles are lost. So we invent things like "a priori" and "thou shalt."

You couldn't be further wrong. Principle is the foundation of everything human. The fact that some things are permanent, solid, objective, is fundamental to human understanding. Human ability to understand is our principal tool of survival, since we are physically so poorly equipped to survive in a harsh environment. The ability to predict by principle that this action will have that outcome is our only means of thriving. In fact, it is principle that permits abstraction, not vice versa. An abstraction of something already nebulous and unknowable is just another layer of unfathomability.

At least this discussion has brought us close to one true thing about human life: that morality is the biggest problem with, and danger to, our species.

It may have brought you closer to that understanding. Don't presume that I will declare that to be a true thing. In fact I could hardly disagree more.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
then it is entirely just that the second person, who apparently cannot do the same for himself, starves to death.

Thanks. I have no response. But does this mean that we should find every person who ever stole to survive and strip them of whatever benefit that theft gave them? That their survival is invalidated because they violated a principle?

You state that life needs to strive. Agreed, at face value. Life must try to support itself and increase itself, or it dies out. But to expand that to freedom, love, etc. is to go off at a tangent, and an incorrect one at that. The fact that human beings have a right to pursue these things does not logically mean that human beings need to pursue these things. It just doesn't.

You further state that the struggle of freedom vs. tyranny, etc. is necessary so that life has something to strive against. You're concluding that since this has happened through human history that it must happen - Good must have Evil to contrast it, or Good will wither.

How very Postmodern of you.

We haven't even gotten "modern" straight yet. This section tells me you only partially get my point(s). It is not about good and evil. In fact, the struggle between good and evil is quite an ancient model of the world. It is about power, which cannot be static, which must be active, and as power must overpower. Consider it in the context of predator/prey, war, personal issues, disease, hate and love. It is the same event over and over. Principles are derived from it.

Consider Christianity, which began as an outlaw cult. "Principle" said it was evil and punishable by death. Until a desperate Roman general decided to give it a try and prayed for victory in battle. He won. It became the official state religion of Rome. And what did these newly powerful Christians do? Kill pagans, over power their oppressors, for a long time, until they themselves were the oppressors. If you had asked a Roman Pagan what he thought of the Christians running the show and his entire world being gone, his status-quo lifestyle becoming illegal, he'd smugly laugh and act like people act today, like things don't change, like power is locked in place, like good and evil are a priori, "universal principles."

If all are people of concrete principles, Good principles, nothing prevents us from striving for Better. If all deal honestly and fairly, and work to provide for themselves, can't we strive to improve our situation continually? Can't we strive to improve the beauty of our works, the learning and intelligence of our children, the standard of living of our families, the reach of our species beyond the planet we currently occupy?

Of course. Nothing I say excludes it. In fact, it encourages it.

Again, you are mistaken in the assumption that because this does happen it must happen.

No. That things happen at all is proof that they must happen or must have happened. You have not shown this to be wrong. Yet history shows is to true over and over.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
You couldn't be further wrong.

I try to stay away from statements like these. At least then I can say I'm not arrogant and self righteous. Further, I fail to see the importance of someone being right or another being wrong. Pointing it out is superfluous.

Principle is the foundation of everything human. The fact that some things are permanent, solid, objective, is fundamental to human understanding... In fact, it is principle that permits abstraction, not vice versa.

Please provide examples of some permanent, objective things. Also, an example of principle predicting something.

It may have brought you closer to that understanding. Don't presume that I will declare that to be a true thing. In fact I could hardly disagree more.

I don't presume anything about you. Truth doesn't need your declaration.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile Thanks. I have no response. But does this mean that we should find every person who ever stole to survive and strip them of whatever benefit that theft gave them? That their survival is invalidated because they violated a principle?

Yes. Ends do not justify means. Period.

We haven't even gotten "modern" straight yet. This section tells me you only partially get my point(s). It is not about good and evil.

Your comment, to which I was replying, was this:

It was and is necessary that injustice occur. Enslaved people must become free; that necessity drives them. And it is a base necessity. But what about the slave’s master? His necessity is decadent, frivolous… to become richer, to be more cruel. When the slave becomes like his master he has the power to become free himself. And the master is consumed in this transaction. The excess strength in his decadence is used up in the advent of freedom for somebody new. Usually they are killed. Marie Antoinette. Mussolini. What would our Western history be like without these great atrocities? Or victories?

You're pretty much saying here that Injustice is a necessity so that Justice can strive against it. Good/Evil. Whatever. I was replying to your assertion. I fail to see the distinction, I guess.

In fact, the struggle between good and evil is quite an ancient model of the world. It is about power, which cannot be static, which must be active, and as power must overpower. Consider it in the context of predator/prey, war, personal issues, disease, hate and love. It is the same event over and over. Principles are derived from it.

If you equate Power with Force, yes, you are correct. That is because Force cannot create. Force can only steal that which is created by others. When I say force, I mean the initiation of force. I have no problem at all with self defense where force is initiated against you.

Consider Christianity, which began as an outlaw cult. "Principle" said it was evil and punishable by death. Until a desperate Roman general decided to give it a try and prayed for victory in battle. He won. It became the official state religion of Rome. And what did these newly powerful Christians do? Kill pagans, over power their oppressors, for a long time, until they themselves were the oppressors.

Here is a fundamental mistake you seem to keep making. It is not principle you are demionstrating here, it is expediency. The expediency of wanting to maintain power by any means necessary led the
Romans to kill the early Christians. The expediency of a Roman general in a desperate situation led to the validation of Christianity. Following their ascension to power, the expediency of the Christian leaders led them to use any means necessary to maintain their power over the Pagans, in a reversal of roles. Principle had nothing to do with it.

All of that is clear as a bell. I believe you need to reexamine your definition of PRINCIPLE.

Of course. Nothing I say excludes it. In fact, it encourages it.

Nothing you say even touches the subject. You mention many different facets of the struggle of good over evil. You never mention the possibility that evil is not a necessity. Because of that ommission, I pointed out the possibilities that I did. I will also ask you to demonstrate how you are encouraging the further improvement of "already good", since you certainly seem to take power and the necessity of evil to use it as your own little a priori "principle".

No. That things happen at all is proof that they must happen or must have happened. You have not shown this to be wrong. Yet history shows is to true over and over.

Your logic is flawed. Period. The first part of your statement is entirely incorrect, illogical, wrong. An event in and of itself is BY NO MEANS PROOF that it MUST happen. I have shown that to be wrong. It is wrong. You are partly correct though; if an event happened, it must have happened. The first part of your statement is wrong; while technically correct, the second part is entirely meaningless. History validates no part of that statement except for the circular logic that "something that happened must have happened".

 

[milefile]

Yes. Ends do not justify means. Period.[/period]
I won’t argue this any more. The discord is very obvious.

You're pretty much saying here that Injustice is a necessity so that Justice can strive against it. Good/Evil. Whatever. I was replying to your assertion. I fail to see the distinction, I guess.

I never used the word “evil.” Nor would I. Evil is a generalization, a concept, not unlike “universal principles,” which, as you already know, I reject not on the value they enforce, but on their groundlessness. Whenever something is called evil the exact reasons why need to be identified. “Evil,” if we must use that word, can only be understood in terms of its effects. Is it a benefit or a detriment to Life? If it is necessary it is a benefit. Superfluousness is detrimental, that is, lacks purpose, is free floating, irrelevant and already doomed no matter what we call it.

If you equate Power with Force, yes, you are correct. That is because Force cannot create. Force can only steal that which is created by others. When I say force, I mean the initiation of force. I have no problem at all with self defense where force is initiated against you.

I don’t see how the initiation of force is stealing. If a door is open and I push it closed I have directed power by exerting force. I created a state that did not exist before. What was stolen and from where?

Here is a fundamental mistake you seem to keep making. It is not principle you are demionstrating here, it is expediency. The expediency of wanting to maintain power by any means necessary led the
Romans to kill the early Christians. The expediency of a Roman general in a desperate situation led to the validation of Christianity. Following their ascension to power, the expediency of the Christian leaders led them to use any means necessary to maintain their power over the Pagans, in a reversal of roles. Principle had nothing to do with it.

All of that is clear as a bell. I believe you need to reexamine your definition of PRINCIPLE.

I am not trying to demonstrate principle. I am trying to show how principles come and go and they are always regarded as permanent and objective, even though they come and go. The fact that this happens over durations hard to grasp from with the duration of a human life certainly complicates matters. But that is why understanding necessity historically is essential. If principles never changed civilization (society, humanity) would never have advanced. Everything becomes superfluous at some point, but only after it was necessary.

Nothing you say even touches the subject. You mention many different facets of the struggle of good over evil. You never mention the possibility that evil is not a necessity. Because of that ommission, I pointed out the possibilities that I did. I will also ask you to demonstrate how you are encouraging the further improvement of "already good", since you certainly seem to take power and the necessity of evil to use it as your own little a priori "principle".

Like I said above, “already good” is already in decline. Recognizing this does not automatically mean rejecting “good” things. But it does require a certain openness that is sometimes hard to bear.

Your logic is flawed. Period. The first part of your statement is entirely incorrect, illogical, wrong. An event in and of itself is BY NO MEANS PROOF that it MUST happen. I have shown that to be wrong. It is wrong. You are partly correct though; if an event happened, it must have happened. The first part of your statement is wrong; while technically correct, the second part is entirely meaningless. History validates no part of that statement except for the circular logic that "something that happened must have happened".

Something that happened must have happened is not circular. It is merely a true statement. I’ll invoke a hypothetical situation. I see a dog about to be hit by a car. I run to the dog and manage to make the car stop, or make the dog move, and I have saved the dog. It was not necessary in the bigger sense that I do this. Nothing depended on it but the dog’s life and my mood. But once it has happened, it must not be missing. Likewise, if I had failed and the dog was dead, the same would be true; it must be this way because it must have happened that way. Time is the tricky part. We make decisions based on what we think must be, even if it is not yet. Hence, we act to make it so. Another hypothetical… I want to be a web developer. I am not one now. But I imagine in the future that I would be happier if I was in certain ways. So I decide to learn how. Then one day in the future I notice that I am a web developer and remember that “moment” (months of thinking and deciding) way back when I started the process. Of course it had to be that way and I am the only person who made it that way. My decision, born of thoughts, became the power to change the future, to overpower myself. And I can say that must not be missing. Because things that have happened have effects that are amplified over time makes the statement “something that happened must have happened” non-circular. And it may be wrong of me to drag danoff in to this paragraph but he mentioned time being the greatest gift of all in a previous post. And since the two of you seem to be on the same philosophical page, I am surprised that neither of you has noticed that “permanent,” “objective,” “universal principles” completely ignore time, that which passes, and that which all things are ultimately subject to… and I might add that which demonstrates historical necessity’s devouring of anything perceived as universal or permanent over and over.

I also might add that ending sentences with ”period,” to me, indicates something hardheaded and intractable, which, is only a bad thing insofar as open-mindedness is more useful

 

[Duke]

But the statement that "Ends do not justify means" is a fixed, immutable, never-changing, permanent, objective, time-independent, universal principle. If you care to consider similar things, such as the law of gravity, the requirement that life consumes energy by changing the state of matter, etc. as "hardheaded and intractable", then it is your loss and not mine.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
I never used the word ?evil.? Nor would I. Evil is a generalization, a concept, not unlike ?universal principles,? which, as you already know, I reject not on the value they enforce, but on their groundlessness. Whenever something is called evil the exact reasons why need to be identified. ?Evil,? if we must use that word, can only be understood in terms of its effects. Is it a benefit or a detriment to Life? If it is necessary it is a benefit. Superfluousness is detrimental, that is, lacks purpose, is free floating, irrelevant and already doomed no matter what we call it.

This portion of the discussion is getting mired in semantics, and so I'm going to table it for the moment.

I don?t see how the initiation of force is stealing. If a door is open and I push it closed I have directed power by exerting force. I created a state that did not exist before. What was stolen and from where?

Are you purposely being dense? You were discussing the use of Power and how it must be excercised. Power = force, ie the threat or action of violence. Violence cannot create anything, it can only destroy. However. it can STEAL the product of creative work.

 

[Cobraking]

is it true that Milefile and allah_almighty are the same person

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Are you purposely being dense?

No but you are purposely being rude. Why?

You discussing the use of Power and how it must be excercised. Power = force, ie the threat or action of violence. Violence cannot create anything, it can only destroy. However. it can STEAL the product of creative work.

This is unequivocally false and one of the most naive statements I've ever heard from an adult who writes like they think they know what they are talking about. I am literally disappointed and even a little shocked to read that. I have to go home now so I'll have to get to exactly why tomorrow.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Cobraking
is it true that Milefile and allah_almighty are the same person

Not only was that random and irrelevant, but it just shows exactly how old you really are.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
I have to go home now so I'll have to get to exactly why tomorrow.

You're leaving work, so: 'I get to go home now.'

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
No but you are purposely being rude. Why?

Because in addition to bogging down the statement about Good and Evil in semantics, here you purposely decided to suddenly pretend I was talking about force in terms of physics, as in F=M*A. You knew that wasn't what I was talking about, yet you purposely made that interpretation. You also spent several hundred words talking about opression, slavery, injustice, etc. then pretended not to understand why I continued discussing things in those terms. That's pretty obnoxious, and purposely designed to avoid the issue. So it ticked me off and I called you on it.

This is unequivocally false and one of the most naive statements I've ever heard from an adult who writes like they think they know what they are talking about. I am literally disappointed and even a little shocked to read that. I have to go home now so I'll have to get to exactly why tomorrow.

I await with bated breath to hear how you're going to justify your assertion that violence can create something. This oughta be good.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
I am not trying to demonstrate principle. I am trying to show how principles come and go and they are always regarded as permanent and objective, even though they come and go. The fact that this happens over durations hard to grasp from with the duration of a human life certainly complicates matters. But that is why understanding necessity historically is essential. If principles never changed civilization (society, humanity) would never have advanced. Everything becomes superfluous at some point, but only after it was necessary.

But what you're actually doing is trying to disprove the existence of principle by labelling something entirely different as "principle", then using that thing's failure as proof that principle doesn't exist as a fixed object. Your logic sucks, and it's getting worse with each post you make in this thread. What you are CALLING "principle" is NOT "principle", and therefore the conclusions you draw from that are not valid.

Something that happened must have happened is not circular. It is merely a true statement.

Another hypothetical… I want to be a web developer. I am not one now. But I imagine in the future that I would be happier if I was in certain ways. So I decide to learn how. Then one day in the future I notice that I am a web developer and remember that “moment” (months of thinking and deciding) way back when I started the process. Of course it had to be that way and I am the only person who made it that way.

That last sentence DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW. The fact that it DID happen that way does not prove it HAD to be that way.

Your logic is poor, at best, and it's rendering this discussion meaningless. Frankly, I'm disappointed that someone who claims to know what he's talking about can accept such glaring errors in his own premises. Perhaps you ought to do a little more reading on the subject of logic so that you fully understand how to draw the kinds of conclusions you're attempting to draw.

 

[Danoff]

When did all of this happen?

I take one afternoon off from this messageboard and I miss all the fun.

It'll be a while before I can respond to all of the material you two have presented, but I'll try later this afternoon. It's totally worth it. I have principles to defend.

 

[Duke]

Heh, now you know how I felt yesterday morning, when I saw that you and milefile had taken my two-liner and turned it into two pages.

TAG, your turn!

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by M5Power
You're leaving work, so: 'I get to go home now.'

Good point. I was thinking of the way my boss will be at my desk at exactly 4:30 and make me leave. They are so anal, or cheap.. That's why I always leave at 4:25.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Because in addition to bogging down the statement about Good and Evil in semantics, here you purposely decided to suddenly pretend I was talking about force in terms of physics, as in F=M*A. You knew that wasn't what I was talking about, yet you purposely made that interpretation. You also spent several hundred words talking about opression, slavery, injustice, etc. then pretended not to understand why I continued discussing things in those terms. That's pretty obnoxious, and purposely designed to avoid the issue. So it ticked me off and I called you on it.

Oh okay. That's a good reason.

It's not designed to avoid anything. It's only more evidence that you don't understand force. Force is force. I'm not going to get into it because the futility of this discussion (that you seem determined to make a fight) is becoming obvious. If you really want me to go into a philosophical explanation of force, fine, I'll humor you. But I don't feel like it.

I await with bated breath to hear how you're going to justify your assertion that violence can create something. This oughta be good.

The French Revolution.
The American Revolution.
D Day
The war that just (sort of) ended in Iraq.

Should I even go into the geological or astronomical examples? No I won't bother because you won't be able to consider force in a more general way.

But I'm sure you know that there can't be life without death. Where would we all fit?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Heh, now you know how I felt yesterday morning, when I saw that you and milefile had taken my two-liner and turned it into two pages.

TAG, your turn!

You're choosing to be a beligerent smartass. I'm disappointed because someone as pompous and self righteous as you really out to be able to argue a point without resorting to insults. As far as I can remember I've responded to every thing you have brought up, with examples. I've expended my energy and effort to communicate with you. I thought a discussion in this "discussion forum" would be a nice stimulant from the monotony of work. But now I'm tired of checking only to see insults and sarcasm.

 

[Duke]

How did I insult you? I've explained my reasoning behind why I asked you about being dense. It was deliberate on your part, and you made no mention of trying to illustrate some broader concept of "force" by your example. perhaps if you had, I might have realized it. I doubt I would have agreed, but at least I would have understood.

I do not feel that I am "resorting to insults" because I cannot argue a point. The way you use logical terms is flawed. If pointing that out to you is insulting, so be it. I aplogize in the interest of courtesy. However, I stand by the statement and do not retract it in any way. I've also noted plenty of "belligerant smartass"ness from you, directed at danoff. I point this out to you at risk of being insulting again.

I would be interested to hear your concept/definition of force/power/whatever. I would argue that the violence of the American Revolution did not create America. Rather, it removed a pre-existing force (English tyranny) which was preventing America from existing. But the act of war did not itself create the ideaology of the Constitution.

I also use the word "create" with the implication that it means "to make something on purpose". Certainly the force of an undersea volcano "creates" a new island. Considering the topic under discussion, don't you think that's irrelevant? I do.

 

[milefile]

I'm going to start keeping my responses short.*

The American Revolution made possible the Country we live in today. It could not have been without it, or, it was necessary. The same can be said for my other examples.

You may have got me on a technicality and I'll admit it. I made a jump and skipped a part. Violence destroys. But that destruction is what makes something new possible.

Violence is necessary and for that reason not always bad, or "evil."

Alternative definition of force to follow...


*The reason for this that elaborations and examples can all be found in my previous posts and I won't ramble on paraphrasing and/or repeating myself.

 

[Danoff]

I'll re-address the issue of necessity vs. principles shortly. But I want to make a few remarks.


Milefile, don't keep your posts short. I really do want to hear what you have to say. The more explanation I get, the better. That way I can (if necessary) argue against your opinions and for my opinions more effectively. The better I understand your position, the more hope (of which I have almost none) I can have to actually convincing you that I am right (which in this case I totally believe).

I'm not discounting the possibility that you could persuade me that I am wrong, which is why I keep my posts lengthy (I want you to have all the ammunition you need to poke holes in my arguments).


One last bit. If one of your statements is shown to be incorrect, the logical thing to do is to re-examine both the premises that brought you to that point and the conclusions you drew from it. That is the only way to grow (which many people stop doing at a young age).

 

[Danoff]

To recap:

We began talking about car safety belts. Quite a few people weighed in on the subject. The consensus seemed to be that because car safety belts save lives, it’s worth the little bit of freedom that we give up in our cars to ensure that this is prevented.

I claimed that the concept of protecting people from themselves is bad. That even though it is a minor amount of freedom to give up, the principle (which I will get into shortly) of the matter is that the law is unjust, unnecessary, and founded in the fundamental belief that we can protect people from their own actions. I don’t think I need to discuss the numerous ways in which that concept is erroneous. If people want to kill themselves they can always find a way. Hopefully they just don’t take others along with them.

So how did we get to our discussion of whether principles exist and whether things must be evaluated on the basis of necessity at each moment?

I claimed that there were fundamental universal principles of right and wrong with regards to freedom that are in violation with the safety belt law. I know this is really harsh and nitt-pickey, but I believe that we need to examine all of our laws this carefully and that some of our laws are incorrect.

Milefile responded to this with the concept that principles do not exist in a universal timeless state. So my argument that principles are at stake with the safety belt law is invalid. This dragged us into a fantastic philosophical debate about the existence of universal principles.

So how does one determine what actions should be taken in a situation if one has no principles. How do we find justice without principles? Milefile claims that we should do this by examining the various needs in the issue and determine which motive is the most necessary.

That is how we arrived at the concept of necessary vs. principles.

If we can determine that there are no universal principles in the world, then presumably we would have to go back to the safety belt law with a fresh perspective and quite likely would find that it is a good law. If we determine that there are universal principles, then, in absence of any argument I have seen that would invalidate the claim that we should not (and can not) protect people from themselves, we would quite likely find that the car safety belt law is in error.

Most importantly, for people like me, who live their lives based on hard fast principles and people like milefile that believe the greatest need determines the course of every event… our perception of the world is in debate.

So let’s continue with the knowledge that we are actually on topic.

 

[Danoff]

Let’s look at the evidence (warning, I’m already presenting my conclusions):



Evidence that principles exist:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s take the fundamental principle that it is wrong to kill another human being.

One might say: “I can think of gazillions of situations where it would not be wrong to kill another human being. What if they committed a crime? What if they were trying to kill me? What if they were threatening my way of life via governmental oppression?”

All of these are examples where other principles are being violated, so one could call these situations, self-defense. Self-defense should be a caveat added to the above principle (but it is not because it should be understood that you give up rights when you violate principles). I’m certain that almost every human being believes it is justifiable to take someone else’s life in cases of serious self-defense. Perhaps this is another fundamental principle in and of itself.

Now I don’t think that this can be successfully argued against. I do not think that this concept has holes. It is (in my mind) completely wrong to kill another human being in any case that is not self-defense. What constitutes self-defense gets really ugly, but the fact remains that if you cannot claim self-defense, you should not kill. Some common sense is needed to quantify self-defense. A beggar cannot steal food or money and claim self defense. It is the actions that made him a beggar that must be defended against. You cannot defend yourself against your current state because there is no action putting you in a state you are already in. The only thing left there is retaliation.

I’m already getting away from the heart of the argument. Which is that this is a fundamental principle. It is timeless. It is universal. It has been applicable since the dawn of civilization. In fact, this is one of the very first things that mankind had to establish in order to enter the world of the civilized. Without this fundamental concept, killing is rampant. If it is ok to kill in cases that are not self-defense, imagine the anarchy that ensues

This is, of course, why killing is illegal in our society and why we have a government to protect us from those who would break this principle (animals with needs).

So here is concrete evidence that a principle exists. It has always existed as law in civilized societies and has always been broken by people who do not understand it and who have needs. People have agreed a law against killing is necessary and good for the history of civilization. The principle exists. It is just. It is timeless. It is universal. It is necessary. It is a principle upon which every civilized society is built.

 

[Danoff]

Evidence that need is not a good judge of right and wrong:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same beggar described above, having achieved the state of beggar either through some governmental error allowing him to be unprotected from crimes, or his own neglect, finds himself hungry and returns to the primal instinct of gathering food (out of necessity). He sees money in someone’s purse as she walks down the sidewalk. Decides (correctly) that he needs the money more than she does and goes for the purse. She holds on to the purse because the money in it represents the part of her life spent earning that money. The beggar is now desperate to get the money and not get caught, so he strikes the lady. She realizes in that instant that she does not need the money as much as he does, or she would have ignored the strike and struck back, hanging on until she was almost dead (as he might have). The beggar gets away with the money and now has solved his hunger problem for the time being (he’ll probably have to return to this state later when the money is gone).

Evaluating this scenario based on the greatest need involved leads to the conclusion that the beggar was justified in stealing the lady’s money, time, mental wellness and hurting her physically in the process. Afterall, he needed her money more than she did. That’s just a fact.

One might then argue that the need that society has for this sort of thing not to take place is greater than the need of the beggar to have the food. This might be true. But what if the majority of society could be represented by the beggar and the minority of society could be represented by the woman with the money. Now the greatest need of society is for this exact thing to take place – a redistribution of wealth in a such a manner that the most mouths are fed.

One might argue that a redistribution of wealth would be bad for society, destroying it’s fundamental socio-economic system leading to more hunger in the end. It is important, however, to remember that we are taking into account the need of the moment here. Also, it would be difficult to prove that a redistribution of wealth would destroy a socio-economic system. Perhaps it would harm the system, but that the system could heal and survive. In the meantime the majority of the population has been spared death.

It is not necessary, however, to evaluate this scenario at the macro level because the ends do not justify the means. The discussion of society benefiting from a wrong is moot, because a wrong has been committed. Perhaps you do not believe that a wrong has been committed when the beggar strikes the lady and steals her money. If this is the case, then the need of the moment is a sufficient judge of the justice of the scenario. And that is the fundamental flaw because the result is a justification of the beggar’s actions.

Using the need of the moment to evaluate the justice of a scenario requires one to eliminate all concepts of right and wrong, as shown above. This is evidence that this method is flawed. Elimination of the concepts of right and wrong leads to lack of laws – anarchy, and the degradation of the civilized world back to a state of animal behavior.