Rush to Judgement

[noctuary]

BTW did anyone welcome you to CR? If not, then welcome.

Yes. I have an intro thread. Everyone has been quite friendly, thanks!

 

[Quahom1]

Well that's a little tricky. I think morals are made by the community you live in. Some are small such as your immediate family: Don't hit your kid, it's wrong.
Some are medium size such as your circle of friends: Don't date an ex of your best friend etc.
Some get bigger as in the neighborhood you live in:
Don't park in your neighbor's parking spot. It's not polite
Bigger: Don't kill people who run over your dog. Go to the police etc.

Morals are what make it easier to live in your chosen community. They vary and are not absolute.

I'd have to agree on this. In my youth, striking a kid for getting out of line was normal, and expected by both parties. By the time I had kids, striking was not the way to go, mind correction was, and they seem to have done ok for themselves. Still a rod, only not physical...

 

[juantoo3]

oops. I didn't mean to go off topic. We can skip the animals if you'd like. I was just using it to explain my position on morals etc.

But see, animal models would seem to serve as a natural (pardon the pun) example of nature based religions. So, if morals are natural, then *all* animals (or at least those above a certain "evolutionary" level of brain development) would have them. Otherwise, morals are a purely human construct with no analogue in other animals. I am inclined to believe the former, in part because the latter presents certain difficulties that can be hard to overcome logically.

Now, I do see a huge difference between "moral(s)" and "moral code." A moral code by definition requires a written code, which limits such to humans only.

 

[Quahom1]

But see, animal models would seem to serve as a natural (pardon the pun) example of nature based religions. So, if morals are natural, then *all* animals (or at least those above a certain "evolutionary" level of brain development) would have them. Otherwise, morals are a purely human construct with no analogue in other animals. I am inclined to believe the former, in part because the latter presents certain difficulties that can be hard to overcome logically.

Now, I do see a huge difference between "moral(s)" and "moral code." A moral code by definition requires a written code, which limits such to humans only.

Indeed, a moral code is not a requirement by a pod of dolphins that push a sailor to shore, nor is it a moral (or is it?) Definitely not same species, but yet acting as if...

 

[juantoo3]

Indeed, a moral code is not a requirement by a pod of dolphins that push a sailor to shore, nor is it a moral (or is it?) Definitely not same species, but yet acting as if...

Precisely! I would be willing to argue that the dolphins (or porpoises if you prefer) *were* acting upon their ingrained intuitive moral instruction, that their moral instruction is how they "get along" amongst themselves and in their larger world.

As social apes, humans too have this ingrained intuitive moral instruction. But humans also have the evolutionary distinction of rational thought leading to writing, among other things.

Along about the time of Hammurabi, a set standard "law" was composed I would guess at least in part based on this intuitive morality.

The structure of the code is very specific, with each offense receiving a specified punishment. The punishments tended to be harsh by modern standards, with many offenses resulting in death, disfigurement, or the use of the "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" philosophy. Putting the laws into writing was important in itself because it suggested that the laws were immutable and above the power of any earthly king to change. The code is also one of the earliest examples of the idea of presumption of innocence, and it also suggests that the accused and accuser have the opportunity to provide evidence. However, there is no provision for extenuating circumstances to alter the prescribed punishment.

Hammurabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-emphasis mine

Which seems to suggest an objective basis for the nature of morality; that is, morals are an objective part of reality, and not purely a subjective part alone. Humans tend to interpret the morality we all see subjectively, but the fact we all see morality suggests an objective source for that morality.

 

[Quahom1]

Precisely! I would be willing to argue that the dolphins (or porpoises if you prefer) *were* acting upon their ingrained intuitive moral instruction, that their moral instruction is how they "get along" amongst themselves and in their larger world.

As social apes, humans too have this ingrained intuitive moral instruction. But humans also have the evolutionary distinction of rational thought leading to writing, among other things.

Along about the time of Hammurabi, a set standard "law" was composed I would guess at least in part based on this intuitive morality.



Hammurabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-emphasis mine

Which seems to suggest an objective basis for the nature of morality; that is, morals are an objective part of reality, and not purely a subjective part alone. Humans tend to interpret the morality we all see subjectively, but the fact we all see morality suggests an objective source for that morality.

The arguement here must be the "morals" fitting the species. Tigers are lone predators, while cetacians are group predators. Yet both show "kindness" to humans as history reveals. Grazing animals tend to ignore man, regardless of his plight. I think you are about to get into biblical ramifications and first fall, in short order.

Maybe "stupid is as stupid does" is real...

 

[juantoo3]

Maybe "stupid is as stupid does" is real...

It wouldn't be the first time I went tap dancing in a minefield... Trouble is, nobody really wants to join me! Can't figure out why?

 

[Quahom1]

It wouldn't be the first time I went tap dancing in a minefield... Trouble is, nobody really wants to join me! Can't figure out why?

...right beside you...

 

[cyberpi]

What judgement is used to respond to a gunshot, and return fire? I submit it can be that same type of judgement, based in experience and training.

Very little judgment there in my opinion. Whereas an open ear and a sharp tongue can stop bullets, but that requires judgment.

I am thinking where you and I differ is in the need for civility *while expressing* disagreement.

Civility is in the eye of the beholder. "uncivil" could be anything: pedophilia, arrogance, picking one's nose, punching someone for something they said... any behavior that you don't like. Whatever you deem is uncivil is your judgment. Not mine. If you wish to teach someone what you judge is uncivil then I would think that words are the way to convey it. Judgment, rebuke, praise. But banning someone? I question whether anyone learned from that.

My definition of civility would be this: The actions of a person who has learned to pull the words out of stones and to use them rather than the stones. In that regard both Silas and Niranjan were civil.

Of course, one can always choose to sit on the sideline, watch things unfold, and then sit back and smugly critique those who are actually getting their hands dirty.

Are those who critique not getting their hands dirty? Did you not critique Silas and Niranjan?

Armchair quarterback I believe is one of the more polite terms.

All that anyone here can do is exchange words. Maybe some files or pictures, but did you expect something more? Should people be banning each other to get their hand dirty? Noses to be bloodied... the poor to be fed... trenches dug... or presents handed out? It is an internet forum and people partake from their armchair.

Since we are being sincere with each other, this is why I have found your critique just a tad short of fully credible, in that you watched and did nothing, only to come back later and criticize everyone else for trying to do anything.

If someone banned you then I would be here criticizing them. I provided argument with both Silas and Niranjan and I personally enjoyed the exchanges.

What you seem to fail to consider (by all means, please review *the whole threads* where these things took place), is that I did make long concerted efforts to deal as amicably as possible with both before things got out of hand. Sadly in the second case, things were already pointed south before I arrived and my efforts were to no avail.

Bringing fuel to a fire is no way to put it out, if that was the intent. I have yet to ever be involved in an exchange that I could not personally end. I can walk into a fire, and I can walk out.

In the first case I spent considerable time and effort, in concert with others behind the scenes, in an attempt to get the person to play nice. For a while it seemed to work, and then that person returned to unacceptably rude behavior.

Intolerable, unacceptable, rude behavior is in the eye of the beholder. I am able to tolerate it. I did not see anyone use words like, "I think your behavior here is unacceptably rude... shame on you.", and to just leave it be.

Neither person, nor any person ever here, has been banned for their views.

I believe you've said they were banned because their words were deemed intollerably uncivil and unacceptably rude.

... and I think the request of civility is an appropriate and modest request to abide by.

I think the Salem Witch trials would be more fair and civil than the judgment and condemnation here of someone's 'civility'... but keep trying to teach me what 'civility' means to you. Maybe I will learn the definition. If I punch someone in the nose who I judge is arrogant... am I civil?

 

[greymare]

what tiger showed kindness toward a human?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

... an open ear and a sharp tongue can stop bullets, but that requires judgment.

I would imagine there are a thousand victims of lynchings who would dispute this if the dead could speak.

Civility is in the eye of the beholder. "uncivil" could be anything: pedophilia, arrogance, picking one's nose, punching someone for something they said... any behavior that you don't like. Whatever you deem is uncivil is your judgment. Not mine. If you wish to teach someone what you judge is uncivil then I would think that words are the way to convey it. Judgment, rebuke, praise. But banning someone? I question whether anyone learned from that.

response:

Civility: "the sacrifices that we make for the sake of living together."

"STEPHEN CARTER: One of the deep problems of our growing incivility is that our children are not learning how to behave. Our children are not getting-for lack of a better term-a moral upbringing. And the traditional model of the moral upbringing was that children learned values on a three-legged stool. And the three legs of the stool were the home, the school, and the place of worship. And the idea was that if any one of those three didn't do the job, the stool only had two legs and would topple over. And nowadays the problem is that a lot of young people aren't learning their rules of behavior, aren't learning their rules of morality at home or at school or at a place of worship. They're learning it from television; they're learning it from movies; they're learning it from politics; they're learning it from the marketplace. They're learning it from a lot of places that have no particular interest in teaching us the values of self-discipline and sacrifice."

Online NewsHour: Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy -- August 5, 1998

I was taught that etiquette and manners boiled down to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Perhaps some people enjoy being shoved around verbally. I don't enjoy it very much at all. This from a person who does enjoy a good sparring discussion. But there is a right way and a wrong way to disagree. History is full of the wrong way. I do try very hard around here to display what I feel to be the right way.

My definition of civility would be this: The actions of a person who has learned to pull the words out of stones and to use them rather than the stones. In that regard both Silas and Niranjan were civil.

Very well, and you are welcome to your opinion in the matter. It is one that I do not share. I suspect virtually every teacher of manners and etiquette would disagree as well.

If someone banned you then I would be here criticizing them. I provided argument with both Silas and Niranjan and I personally enjoyed the exchanges.

I see. Would it comfort you any to know that I personally did not ban either one? Between them only one did I petition for banning, and then as a temporary measure (a time out until he could get his act together). Unfortunately it seems the physical mechanics of the forum computer programming does not make such a task so easy, it appears to be more of an "all or nothing" proposition. Decisions were made, and I agree with those decisions in light of the options available. I will not apologize for that. I think all of us involved would have preferred a more lenient "sentence," but that was not an available option.

You try very hard to make this whole episode seem like it was only a simple reactive impulse without due consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were long, agonizing discussions between several people about the matter before any action was taken. Simply no comparison to impulsive condemnation.

But I suspect you'll carry on about this. It's your personal axe to grind...<*sigh*>

Bringing fuel to a fire is no way to put it out, if that was the intent. I have yet to ever be involved in an exchange that I could not personally end. I can walk into a fire, and I can walk out.

Making no attempt to put out the flames when the fire extinguisher is in your hands is no way to put a fire out either. The problem as I see it is that you *didn't* get involved.

Intolerable, unacceptable, rude behavior is in the eye of the beholder. I am able to tolerate it. I did not see anyone use words like, "I think your behavior here is unacceptably rude... shame on you.", and to just leave it be.

Duly noted. Of course, that tack was tried, by me, and was ignored. Which tells me it is not very effective.

If I punch someone in the nose who I judge is arrogant... am I civil?

I suppose it depends on perspective (punchee or puncher), and whether or not you are responsible for more than just yourself.

Of course, from my perspective, you keep swinging at my nose, and maybe one day you'll hit it. Ask me what I think then, OK? Of course, I might just want to do unto you what you had done to me at that time, you know, return the favor? Could you really blame me? BTW, that would be what I understand the phrase "turn the other cheek" to *really* mean in the Aramaic.

 

[juantoo3]

The arguement here must be the "morals" fitting the species. Tigers are lone predators, while cetacians are group predators. Yet both show "kindness" to humans as history reveals. Grazing animals tend to ignore man, regardless of his plight. I think you are about to get into biblical ramifications and first fall, in short order.

I don't want to lose sight of this, Q, but I gotta run for now. I'll get back as soon as I can.

 

[cyberpi]

But I suspect you'll carry on about this. It's your personal axe to grind...<*sigh*>

I have no axe, only words.

Very well, and you are welcome to your opinion in the matter. It is one that I do not share. I suspect virtually every teacher of manners and etiquette would disagree as well.

Which teacher of manners and etiquette do you claim throws stones at their children? The church, the school, the family... God?

I was taught that etiquette and manners boiled down to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Then why was it you who claimed to be busy acting out of character trying to do unto Silas that which you claimed that Silas was doing, and that which you did not like Silas doing unto you? It appeared that experiment was repeated with Niranjan.

Making no attempt to put out the flames when the fire extinguisher is in your hands is no way to put a fire out either. The problem as I see it is that you *didn't* get involved.

You think you have a fire extinguisher? Have you doused a flame? By your account, you and whoever else took part wanted to teach Silas and Niranjan a lesson. So a flame was lit. The flame was called things like 'uncivil', or 'intolerable', or 'rude' after someone was banned. When I bring it up to you that you were a major part of both flames, your rebuttal is that you were acting out of character.

If Silas or Niranjan were still around, I'd like to ask them if they were doing unto others as they wish others doing unto them. I wonder if they would also say that they were purposely disobeying the golden rule to act out of character.

I suppose it depends on perspective (punchee or puncher), and whether or not you are responsible for more than just yourself... Of course, from my perspective, you keep swinging at my nose, and maybe one day you'll hit it.

Do you like it when people punch you in the nose when they see arrogance in you?

I think applying the golden rule to the alleged pedophiliac, and the mob chasing him... is a wonderful idea. How is that rightfully done? I think it involves a question mark.

 

[juantoo3]

I have no axe, only words.

Indeed, that axe is metaphoric.

The simple fact that you are still here to continue goading about an event that took place more than a year ago should serve as ample evidence to the contrary, that I am not like the distorted picture you paint.

Anyone familiar with the case in question, or who should choose to look and consider for themselves, would realize that I too am human, just like Silas and Niranjan. Sometimes choices must be made for the benefit of the whole, and maybe those choices are not the ideal because the situation is not ideal. I fail to see how you can continue to fault someone for doing what he felt was in the best interests of the whole at the time.

Unless your whole purpose is to undermine and topple the whole?

 

[Quahom1]

Indeed, that axe is metaphoric.

The simple fact that you are still here to continue goading about an event that took place more than a year ago should serve as ample evidence to the contrary, that I am not like the distorted picture you paint.

Anyone familiar with the case in question, or who should choose to look and consider for themselves, would realize that I too am human, just like Silas and Niranjan. Sometimes choices must be made for the benefit of the whole, and maybe those choices are not the ideal because the situation is not ideal. I fail to see how you can continue to fault someone for doing what he felt was in the best interests of the whole at the time.

Unless your whole purpose is to undermine and topple the whole?

Can't argue with a deaf mute, especially if he is blind...

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Silas was stupid. He was a mercy killing. I wanted to watch Silas hang himself and evangelical Christianity from the top of his ridiculous soap box. That would have been fun. I suspect that he was axed for that very reason. Whacked before he could expose a side of Christianity that invites ridicule. 86'ed before he could spill his drink on the white sofa. Nirnjan was just an Indian cultural supremacist.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

OK, I'm back to this:

The arguement here must be the "morals" fitting the species.

Morals are what make it easier to live in your chosen community. They vary and are not absolute.

I don't think anybody is yet arguing otherwise. Morals *are* subjective and situational even among the various animals...but the overwhelming demonstration of moral behavior *across nature* suggests an underlying objective morality that is difficult to explain or dismiss.

Tigers are lone predators, while cetacians are group predators. Yet both show "kindness" to humans as history reveals. Grazing animals tend to ignore man, regardless of his plight.

They (animals) follow natural law. So they don't need help existing in this world. We, on the other hand, need some help since we think we are better than the other creatures on this planet.

in my opinion we are putting a human name to a natural law: Get along with others etc. I don't think they follow out of a sense of moral code. They (animals) follow the natural law to live.

Animals *do* follow the laws of nature. Humans are animals.

Morals are about getting along together within a group in order to promote the survival of the group. Those morals may or may not (most likely not) be extended outside the group, including to others of the same species. That dolphins help sailors is not due to morality per se, but of intelligence and curiousity. Tigers I would think like most animals try to avoid humans in the standard "fight or flight" of survival, the natural law of the jungle.

In this age we like to think of humanity as enlightened, but the historical fact is that humans segregate into cliques by common heritage, patriotism, religion and other factors. Once segregated, humans *historically* tend to treat others within their groups with moral behavior, and those outside the group were not necessarily extended the same privilege. Historically, especially during times of war, we hold a tendency to de-humanize our human opponents and treat them as other than our particular cliques' definition of human, as sub-human.

Extensions of this can be carried forward into the rest of the animal world, even into the vegetable and mineral world, where we tend to treat anything not human, not like our clique, as not being *worthy* of our moral behavior.

We need morals because we refuse to follow natural law.

The natural law is that we must eat to survive. We kill. We must kill. To survive, we must kill other living creatures. This is an ugly part of reality, but it is an inescapable part of reality. Morals are a portion of what we do to deal with this ugly reality within our own minds to maintain some semblence of sanity in order to function civilly and socially. We must avert our tendency to "red of tooth and claw" from our group in order for the species to survive and thrive. Otherwise our species population would implode.

But we ruin the natural law. We horde to the point of disaster. We do not follow the basic me then you then me then you. We all say me me me. We try to go beyond our turn.

All animals are naturally selfish. All animals are self focused. To survive, they must be. So I would have to ask if maybe you are superimposing a personal set of values onto the reality of survival instinct?

Yes, humanity has depleted resources. Humanity has destroyed ecosystems and brought about the extinction of many creatures. Until the last few hundred years these events could be attributed directly to the survival of the human species. It is only with the advent of recent technologies that the pollution and unintended consequences of industry have accelerated the collapse of species and ecosystems not directly attributed to the survival of the human species.

I see hoarding a bit differently...do not the squirrels gather and hoard acorns for future use? Do not ants gather and hoard for future use? Do not bees gather and hoard for future use? Keeping a store for future use is a smart hedge *against* natural disaster and man-made calamities.

If anything, I see a disturbing tendency among "modern" humans away from natural survival knowledge to a dependency on technology and industry. I see a double edged sword, we decry the impact of our technologies while simultaneously growing ever more dependent on those same technologies.

How many here know how to grow a garden? Betcha most think you just put a seed in dirt, add water, maybe a little sun and *poof*, there's a garden. A gardener knows it's not like that at all, in spite of the textbooks.

I bet few here can skin a goat, let alone something as big as a cow. Most cringe at the thought, but are only too happy to swing by the burger joint for a 99 cent special of the day with extra cheese while wearing their leather designer boots and matching handbag. Where do these things come from?

I think you are about to get into biblical ramifications and first fall, in short order.

I sure am, starting with personal responsibility. Then on to realizing there is no proverbial "they," it is *we.*

 

[Quahom1]

Silas was stupid. He was a mercy killing. I wanted to watch Silas hang himself and evangelical Christianity from the top of his ridiculous soap box. That would have been fun. I suspect that he was axed for that very reason. Whacked before he could expose a side of Christianity that invites ridicule. 86'ed before he could spill his drink on the white sofa. Nirnjan was just an Indian cultural supremacist.

Chris

WTF, are you ok, Chris? That just came out of left field...ya know what I mean?

 

[Quahom1]

OK, I'm back to this:




I don't think anybody is yet arguing otherwise. Morals *are* subjective and situational even among the various animals...but the overwhelming demonstration of moral behavior *across nature* suggests an underlying objective morality that is difficult to explain or dismiss.





Animals *do* follow the laws of nature. Humans are animals.

Morals are about getting along together within a group in order to promote the survival of the group. Those morals may or may not (most likely not) be extended outside the group, including to others of the same species. That dolphins help sailors is not due to morality per se, but of intelligence and curiousity. Tigers I would think like most animals try to avoid humans in the standard "fight or flight" of survival, the natural law of the jungle.

In this age we like to think of humanity as enlightened, but the historical fact is that humans segregate into cliques by common heritage, patriotism, religion and other factors. Once segregated, humans *historically* tend to treat others within their groups with moral behavior, and those outside the group were not necessarily extended the same privilege. Historically, especially during times of war, we hold a tendency to de-humanize our human opponents and treat them as other than our particular cliques' definition of human, as sub-human.

Extensions of this can be carried forward into the rest of the animal world, even into the vegetable and mineral world, where we tend to treat anything not human, not like our clique, as not being *worthy* of our moral behavior.



The natural law is that we must eat to survive. We kill. We must kill. To survive, we must kill other living creatures. This is an ugly part of reality, but it is an inescapable part of reality. Morals are a portion of what we do to deal with this ugly reality within our own minds to maintain some semblence of sanity in order to function civilly and socially. We must avert our tendency to "red of tooth and claw" from our group in order for the species to survive and thrive. Otherwise our species population would implode.



All animals are naturally selfish. All animals are self focused. To survive, they must be. So I would have to ask if maybe you are superimposing a personal set of values onto the reality of survival instinct?

Yes, humanity has depleted resources. Humanity has destroyed ecosystems and brought about the extinction of many creatures. Until the last few hundred years these events could be attributed directly to the survival of the human species. It is only with the advent of recent technologies that the pollution and unintended consequences of industry have accelerated the collapse of species and ecosystems not directly attributed to the survival of the human species.

I see hoarding a bit differently...do not the squirrels gather and hoard acorns for future use? Do not ants gather and hoard for future use? Do not bees gather and hoard for future use? Keeping a store for future use is a smart hedge *against* natural disaster and man-made calamities.

If anything, I see a disturbing tendency among "modern" humans away from natural survival knowledge to a dependency on technology and industry. I see a double edged sword, we decry the impact of our technologies while simultaneously growing ever more dependent on those same technologies.

How many here know how to grow a garden? Betcha most think you just put a seed in dirt, add water, maybe a little sun and *poof*, there's a garden. A gardener knows it's not like that at all, in spite of the textbooks.

I bet few here can skin a goat, let alone something as big as a cow. Most cringe at the thought, but are only too happy to swing by the burger joint for a 99 cent special of the day with extra cheese while wearing their leather designer boots and matching handbag. Where do these things come from?



I sure am, starting with personal responsibility. Then on to realizing there is no proverbial "they," it is *we.*

There is no "we". animals have nothing on man. It is Us, and us alone. No matter what an animal does, it does no wrong. Man on the otherhand is not so fortunate to have that ace in the hand...

 

[juantoo3]

There is no "we". animals have nothing on man. It is Us, and us alone. No matter what an animal does, it does no wrong. Man on the otherhand is not so fortunate to have that ace in the hand...

True, but that brings us around to codified morality. There is a distinction.

I'll have to get back, gotta take of something...