Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » What Valentines Day means to me!

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: What Valentines Day means to me!
Kate
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is love?

"And here is how to measure it-the greatest love is shown when people lay down their lives for their friends."

John 15:13 NLT

Love is willing to sacrifice for the good of others, even to death. (See also 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, the famous chapter that gives one of the most eloquent descriptions of love ever written).

This web page, comes from an online ministry that I was a part of, for several years, until it became so popular, it was too overwhelming! There were many people, who came seeking love, and forgiveness, and found it, through our team, who were willing to give of their time and themselves, to let the Lord work through them! Many suicidal people, who came to talk with us, decided life was worth living, and many came to know Jesus as I know Him, because of the dedication of these wonderful people! Some of you don't understand the things I share with you, and that is ok. I share, because I care about you, and I hope and pray that someday, you will understand! You see, scripture explains to us, that as we live this life, it is like we are looking through a glass darkly, and someday, the darkness will be gone, and we will see with the clear eyes of our souls. That is when we understand the truth! I hope you had a wonderful Valentines Day! Kate [Smile]

http://www.jlabax.com/melancholy/valday.html

Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Art's primer on love and morality:

Loving is a need, as is its opposite, the need for love. Loving is providing for the need fulfillment of self or others, while the need for love is a need for fulfillments from self or others. Fulfillments include acquisitions as well as avoidance of failure (pain, frustration and punishment).

Hating is a need to provide failure to self or others.

Loving and hating are inversely related - in loving another you hate yourself (put their needs ahead of your own in self sacrifice) and in hating others you love yourself (put your own needs ahead of the other in making them sacrifice). In loving yourself, you hate others - in buying something for yourself you decrease what you could spend on others, for example.

Love is the basis of morality. We say a person is moral when they act lovingly and say a person is evil when they act hatingly.

Morality is an evaluation of actual and/or predicted reward and/or punishment implications in relation to self and/or others. Both sides of a conflict say they are moral and that the conflicting party is immoral.

There is no absolute morality. It is always relative to self or others and always in conflict.

Resolution of such self-other moral conflicts always requires compromise, forced by political pressures (where guilt and/or anxiety over not compromising is a first-line pressure and war is the ultimate such pressure). Because of the politics, either of personality or of external pressures, might makes right in every moral conflict resolution. Affirmative action is an example - it is imposed by the might of government (legislation or judicial) based on a principle of redress.

Moral principles are conceptual abstractions inductively formed to love or hate. We can kill in the name of morality. But even in moral principles, might makes right as determined by the outcome of the internal battle of personality dynamics that formed the moral principle.

Universal love is an overgeneralized abstraction. In loving the world we hate ourselves, our families, and our countries. The Kyoto treaty is an example - it would cost the U.S. (ourselves, families, and nation) while benefiting the rest of the world.

Any nation should provide first for their citizens and only provide for those outside the nation when it benefits the nation at least equal to the cost. In the case of the Kyoto treaty, we should reject it because the costs to us outweighs the benefits. If we adopted the treaty as liberals would like, we would thereby hate ourselves.

Liberals often want us to hate ourselves and love the world, or love certain groups in our nation (i.e., the parsasitic poor, unhealthy, criminal, etc.). Liberals hate the U.S. and whatever it does. They seek to change the U.S. in ways that would destroy it, and are too stupid or ignorant to realize the effects of the changes they would make. Liberals have already damaged the U.S. by past and present policies that serve to reduce the standard of living for all U.S. citizens.

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kate
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Love, is REALLY being moral, [Smile] when those you are sharing with, either disagree with everything you say, or hate you for saying it! [Smile] The Lord gives you the strength, to keep on, keeping on! [Smile] Why? Because He loves you!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate, glad to see you agree with me again.

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by grjohnso:
I have heard these post-modern arguments many times. Your worldview can be traced all the way back to Fredrich Niche whome Karl Marx was a student of. I suggest you read some C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. They will represent an alternate view of thought for you.

Lets say the Nazi's won ww2 and all jews are dead. Lets say EVERYONE today believes in their heart that it was the right thing to do. Whould genocide then become morally ok?


Why do you argue a point if there is no absolute right or wrong (truth). If your entire worldview is baseless then why do anything? Your contradiction in thinking is entirly evident to me.

I have read your posts for over a year now art and I never considered you a student of post-modern thought.

interesting,

-Greg

p.s. your statement "There are absolutely no absolutes" is fundamentally flawed. You are trying to make an absolute statement can you not see this?

Gee, all those names of famous people. Am I suppose to be impressed with name-dropping in lieu of argument? And if everyone agreed that extermination of all the Jews was morally valid, who is there to say it was not? Where is morality if it is more than an evaluation product of persoanlity processing? See my post to Kate on the off-topic forum on Kate's "Valentine Day" thread. Look forward to your views since you have read a few books.


By the way, my statement that there 'absolutely are no absolutes' was meant to amuse. Sorry you missed the humor. We have levels of conceptual generality in conceptualization. When a concept is overly general, lacking in discrimination to fit it properly to describe reality, it is too absolute and invalid in its categorical overinclusiveness. The statement 'there are no valid moral absolutes' properly applies to all moral evaluations. but is not absolute in application to all conceptualizations. We reason from the general to the specific and many conceptualizations have a general (absolute) quality, that may or may not be valid. That was behind my joke about "absolutely no absolutes" -some conceptualizations are general, and applicable to a system or universe of application. My absolute statement applies to all moral evaluations where, might makes right (sometimes the internal dynamics of personality processing is the only basis of "might" here) in all such evaluations.

Can you give me one moral absolute that always applies? Perhaps, "Killing is always wrong" as your example about killing all the Jews was wrong in spite of everyone, eveywhere thinking it was right?

I have copied this to the Valentine Day thread on the off-topic discussion.


--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
grjohnso
Member


Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for grjohnso     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
art: Gee, all those names of famous people. Am I suppose to be impressed with name-dropping in lieu of argument?

I was trying to tell you where your thought process has originated from. Your arguments here are very common. I thought maybe you could find some interest or even insight in reading into an opposing worldview.

Art:And if everyone agreed that extermination of all the Jews was morally valid, who is there to say it was not?

Are you suggesting that humans, a spiecies of utter insignificance in our universe can project ultamate morality? What if there were no humans whould monkeys then decide morality. Would this line of universal moral projectors trickle all the way down to a single cell organism?

Art:By the way, my statement that there 'absolutely are no absolutes' was meant to amuse. Sorry you missed the humor. We have levels of conceptual generality in conceptualization. When a concept is overly general, lacking in discrimination to fit it properly to describe reality, it is too absolute and invalid in its categorical overinclusiveness. The statement 'there are no valid moral absolutes' properly applies to all moral evaluations. but is not absolute in application to all conceptualizations. We reason from the general to the specific and many conceptualizations have a general (absolute) quality, that may or may not be valid. That was behind my joke about "absolutely no absolutes" -some conceptualizations are general, and applicable to a system or universe of application.

You indeed admit there are some absolutes. Such as "1+1=2" and never anything else. So, there are absolutes but only amoral circumstances. Your humor was in fact very intellectual in thought. This was the exact statement I wanted to see from you.

Art:Can you give me one moral absolute that always applies? Perhaps, "Killing is always wrong" as your example about killing all the Jews was wrong in spite of everyone, eveywhere thinking it was right?

Yes, I can because I believe in absolute truth. Your thinking however cannot because you base your reasoning on nothing constant. What you will see deep down is that feeling is a basis for your morality. Fellings are the basis of postmodern morality. Im sure you have experienced in trading as I have that feelings can indeed get you into trouble. Fellings are easily manipulated and cannot possibly be a moral compass. Feelings change from moment to moment and from person to person. So you ask "what else is there?", one answer is "logic". How can humans be ultamately logical when we cannot see all ends, just as a rat in a maze. To the scientist the end is obvious but to the rat it is uncomprehendable until it has been experienced. This leads me to believe there is intellegence that indeed does see all ends. This intellegence sets moral truth. This raises many more questions.


Explain to me in what context it would be morally right for me to smash the heads of small children on rocks like watermelons?


I know that was morbid but perhaps it will convey a point.


Art, I truely appreciate your resposes. This is very refreshing to speak with someone intellegent on this issue. I am used to kids my age with no coherent thought process.
-Greg

Posts: 257 | From: mcminnvill, OR usa | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Art: And if everyone agreed that extermination of all the Jews was morally valid, who is there to say it was not?

G: Are you suggesting that humans, a spiecies of utter insignificance in our universe can project ultamate morality? What if there were no humans whould monkeys then decide morality. Would this line of universal moral projectors trickle all the way down to a single cell organism?

Art: Yes, I am saying the ontological basis of morality is in personality evaluations of actual/predicted reward/punishment of self/others from the perspective of self or others. Where do you suggest motality would exist if there were no humans or other species capable of such evaluations and on earth or on a posible other planet? The universe is amoral.

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ghtry
Member


Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ghtry     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lets not argue in this thread lets show some love
Posts: 84 | From: austin texas united states | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Art: We have levels of conceptual generality in conceptualization. When a concept is overly general, lacking in discrimination to fit it properly to describe reality, it is too absolute and invalid in its categorical overinclusiveness. The statement 'there are no valid moral absolutes' properly applies to all moral evaluations. but is not absolute in application to all conceptualizations. We reason from the general to the specific and many conceptualizations have a general (absolute) quality, that may or may not be valid. That was behind my joke about "absolutely no absolutes" -some conceptualizations are general, and applicable to a system or universe of application.

G: You indeed admit there are some absolutes. Such as "1+1=2" and never anything else. So, there are absolutes but only amoral circumstances.

Art: '1 + 1 = 2' is applicable only to the system of math. It describes discrete material phenomena. Not necessarily applicable outside the conceptual math or material dimension. The moral absolutes are concepts about nmoral evalution that those I described above, but there are no absolute moral principles.


Art: Can you give me one moral absolute that always applies? Perhaps, "Killing is always wrong" as your example about killing all the Jews was wrong in spite of everyone, eveywhere thinking it was right?

G: Yes, I can because I believe in absolute truth.

Art: Not a moral principle. Also not true since truth is accuracy of description of reality, and reality is multidimensional. Depends on your observational perspective, and the dimension within which observation ocurs, as well as fit between the event(s) observed/measured and your subsequent description of this. Therefore, truth is relative to dimension, perspective, observatioanl/measurement accuracy, and subsequnt description, etc.

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ghtry:
lets not argue in this thread lets show some love

Then we will learn nothing from one another. We could show love to one another and agree completely, then praise each other for such valid thought. This would have no learning value.

[ February 24, 2005, 02:26: Message edited by: Art ]

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G: You base your reasoning on nothing constant.

Art: Nothing is constant, except in one dimension or a context within that dimension. The speed of light can vary situationally - light can even go faster than itself in a cesium medium. Quantum experiments show FTL events.

G: What you will see deep down is that feeling is a basis for your morality.

Art: Close. Very astute in fact. Feelings are awareness expressions of unconscious processes - deep emotion-motivational processes. Morality is based in motivations and motivations can give ries to feelings in awareness though most motivations do not do this.

G: Feelings are easily manipulated and cannot possibly be a moral compass. Feelings change from moment to moment and from person to person.

Art: Yes, as unconscious motivations change, feelings and morality evaluations change. You see someone shoot and kill someone else in a public place, and say this killing is immoral. Then you find out that the person killed was a terrorist in the act of trying to set off a bomb and kill innocent people in large number. Your evalution changes doesn't it? You no longer say that killing the terrorist first was immoral, unless you are some kind of universal love religious nut, and now view it as a moral action.

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G: How can humans be ultamately logical when we cannot see all ends, just as a rat in a maze. To the scientist the end is obvious but to the rat it is uncomprehendable until it has been experienced. This leads me to believe there is intellegence that indeed does see all ends. This intellegence sets moral truth. This raises many more questions.

Art: Yes, Plato saw God as the source of absolute truth, beauty, and morality. God is the source of existence, not truth, since truth is an evaluation of the desriptions we make of existence. Truth is relative. Existence is. There is a big differnce.

Assuming there is a God source of absolute morality, then is killing the terrorist, in the example above, right or wrong according to this non-exsitence source of absolute morality? Or should the terrorist not be stopped in killing innocent people? Yes,. I know, we can't understand God's ways with our limited knowledge. Well then that lets us off of the hook and we can act immorally since we don't know what morality is.

I'm hear to tell you that God is amoral and doesn't care if we kill the terrist before he or she kills others, or if the terrorist kills others first and dies in the act.

It only matters to people.

G: Explain to me in what context it would be morally right for me to smash the heads of small children on rocks like watermelons?

Art: You are a very thoughtful person. My answer is it depends on who benefits and who, besides the children, loses, in terms of the life or death of the children.

If I did this (without admiting that I ever have done this), and it gave me sadsitic pleasure, then from my personal perspective of my own fulfullments it would be amoral act. From the perspective of the children, and their parents, it is immoral. Suppose the children were horribly disabled, requiring life long and full time care, and their parents were dead. Suppose society refused to take on this burden and no one stepped forward to volunteer to care for them. Then from a social or group perspective, killing the children by the means available would be moral.

G: This is very refreshing to speak with someone intellegent on this issue. I am used to kids my age with no coherent thought process.

Art: Yes, and when I go to college next year I hope to learn more. Seriously, thanks for the compliment but I answered your post in sequence without first reading all of it, so my previous compliments to you were not contingent on yours to me.

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The single absolute, or constant, is existence, at all its facets and dimensions.

It always was and always will be, but in an everchanging form with ever changing manifestations.

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kate
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Art, I'd rather end up where my beliefs say I will go, after I die, than where scientists say that I will go! That is more logical to me, than believing that if God created everything, including His Word, and told us that we would be with Him for eternity if we believed, turning our backs on that promise, and going where we shouldn't go because we wanted to be in total control of our lives, and turn our backs on our Creator!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
when is valentines day? never really got caught up in the scam. sorry. dont think we need another day to throw our money away. hey-- that rhymes!

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
grjohnso
Member


Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for grjohnso     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
art: If I did this (without admiting that I ever have done this), and it gave me sadsitic pleasure, then from my personal perspective of my own fulfullments it would be amoral act. From the perspective of the children, and their parents, it is immoral. Suppose the children were horribly disabled, requiring life long and full time care, and their parents were dead. Suppose society refused to take on this burden and no one stepped forward to volunteer to care for them. Then from a social or group perspective, killing the children by the means available would be moral.


Greg:Why?

Posts: 257 | From: mcminnvill, OR usa | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by grjohnso:
art: If I did this (without admiting that I ever have done this), and it gave me sadsitic pleasure, then from my personal perspective of my own fulfullments it would be a moral act. From the perspective of the children, and their parents, it is immoral. Suppose the children were horribly disabled, requiring life long and full time care, and their parents were dead. Suppose society refused to take on this burden and no one stepped forward to volunteer to care for them. Then from a social or group perspective, killing the children by the means available would be moral.


Greg:Why?

Art: Because the disabled children are parasites - drain more from society than they contribute. They will never be able to work and pay taxes like non-parasitic citizens. Society's standard of living is linked to how well it gets rids of its parasites (criminals, welfare recipients, permanently disabled, others who take more from a nation's resources than they contribute).


For centuries the Chinese killed female babies after birth because they regarded females as useless compared to men. Old Eskimos, who can no longer work in the family setting, go off on an ice flo and drift away to die - no one objects. They are a drain on family resources - parasites. Why is this immoral?



[ February 27, 2005, 00:07: Message edited by: Art ]

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kate
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would it of been moral, to kill you guys as a child, if you would of been in this situation?

--------------------
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!

Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
firebirdude
Member


Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for firebirdude     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Valentines Day is a holiday created by Hallmark
Posts: 115 | From: Honolulu, HI | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
grjohnso
Member


Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for grjohnso     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Art, I have enjoyed talking to you on this subject but I do not see it going anywhere. I believe there are indeed moral absolutes. These absolutes are derived from absolute truth. These truths come from a superior intellegence that indeed sees all ends. I do agree that every moral situatuion is different and the oppourtunity must outwiegh the cost. But to define the opportunity and the cost I have to have something absolute. Just as you have in this statement:
"They will never be able to work and pay taxes like non-parasitic citizens. Society's standard of living is linked to how well it gets rids of its parasites (criminals, welfare recipients, permanently disabled, others who take more from a nation's resources than they contribute)."

You are making the absolute assumtion that survival/life is good. You defined killing parasites as a cost and Society's standards as the opportunuty. This is based on a sociological perspective. I would ask why survival/life is good. Somewhere down the line in a moral argument you have to make an assumtion. My underlying assumtions come from absolute truth given to me by an absolute being.

I also see from your other posts that you are interested in quantum mechanics. I agree with you that reality is multidimensional. Interesting stuff!

-Greg


p.s.how has trading gone for you these last months? Oversolds are indeed showing up a lot on the nasdaq. Have you thought of trading oversold medium and largecaps? It seems that smallcaps may not perform as well this year.

Posts: 257 | From: mcminnvill, OR usa | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
grjohnso: I believe there are indeed moral absolutes. These absolutes are derived from absolute truth. These truths come from a superior intellegence that indeed sees all ends.

Art: You tend to embed morality with the basis of all existence, whereas I do not see morality, outside of humans, in the universe as a whole.

I believe that morality only exists as a personality evaluation the of reward/punishment aspects of an event (either an internal personality production or an external event) as predicted or actualized, where this personality evaluation is made from the perspective of the needs of self or others or both.

I know that the way we think makes us form generalizations as inductive abstractions from our past experience. We have a strong need to love, and to be loved, and we often seek being loved by loving. We abstract from experiences both of being loved and of loving, and from this assert the moral principle that loving others is good, and being loved is good. From this we construct a moral absolute: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - and loving and helping everyone is good while hurting others and killing others is immoral or bad. We say this is true, and to give the idea force, we say it comes from God.

First of all, this idea does not emanate from the quantum world of basic existence and is not in the classical world of particles and forces - the universe outside of humans is amoral - God outside of a construction of human persoanlity is amoral (neither moral or immoral, but just is).

Second of all the idea is not true. Loving and helping others is sometimes evil as it promotes evil when the recipient is evil and exploits your love or uses it to destry you. Killing is sometimes good as when it is done to save innocent lives.

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Art
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Art     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
grjohnso: I do agree that every moral situatuion is different and the oppourtunity must outwiegh the cost. But to define the opportunity and the cost I have to have something absolute.

Art: You are correct in saying that morality is relative. Those who say morality is an absolute and not relative are unable to specify any moral principle that is absolute, thereby revealing that morality is indeed relative.

You are wrong in saying you have to have an absolute to define relative morality - you have to have a general statement(s) but these are not absolutes since they apply only to a specified area. Take my statement:

"Parasites in a nation are those that will never be able to work and pay taxes like non-parasitic citizens. Society's standard of living is linked to how well it gets rids of its parasites (criminals, welfare recipients, permanently disabled, others who take more from a nation's resources than they contribute). This is because parasites drain a nation's resources and take away from the non-parasites who make the nation competitive in the world marketplace. The nations with the fewest parasites, all other factors equal (like natural resources value), will be more competitive in the world market place and thus will enjoy a higher standard of living for all of their citizens, rich or poor. "

This is a relative morality - standard of living is relative to the fewest number of parasites in a nation and largest value of natural resources.
General statements or principles are used but this does not make the morality involved absolute.

grjohnso: You are making the absolute assumtion that survival/life is good.

Art: Yes, and standard of living increase is good. The greatest good for the greatest number, where good is: maximal need fulfillment and minimal need fulfillment failure.

Why is this morality wrong? What would be your definition of good, and good for whom?

grjohnso: You defined killing parasites as a cost and Society's standards as the opportunuty.

Art: Don't understand this. I said that killing parasites is solely evaluated in terms of costs to the parasite (loss of their life) and society, versus benefits to society by removing these parasites and stopping them from hurting society. There is no need to consider that killing is wrong in any false absolute sense - killing is usually good for those doing the killing.

grjohnso: This is based on a sociological perspective.

Art: Actually a psycholigical analysis of the ontology of morality.

grjohnso: I would ask why survival/life is good.

Art: Good question. The answer is that it is the most basic and strongest need we have - except in suicidals. Morality is based in needs and fulfillment pleasure, as well as in the pain from failure in need fulfillment.

grjohnso: Somewhere down the line in a moral argument you have to make an assumtion. My underlying assumptions come from absolute truth given to me by an absolute being.

Art: You have false assumptions. My assumptions are based on the nature of existence and operation of the universe and personality, which allows me to specify a valid morality. You can not specify a valid morality.

grjohnso: how has trading gone for you these last months?

Art: I trade at all price ranges. My total value has remained the same over the last 6 weeks, fluctuating up and down around a mean. Rough times.

--------------------
The light of truth is blinding to most.

More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.

Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share