You Sad Pathetic Man...

[Crackpot]

I have born catholic turned agnostic now Christian. (Still take issue with most of what's done in Christ/Gods name)

[oldr_n_wsr]

I like to think that I am a spiritual person even though I do not subscribe to a given God. I try and do good for others and for myself. If that gains/retards me in whaterver afterlife there is, or isn't, I accept that. I do not believe in "religion" as that is man made and man is flawed.

[Sean]

Before I even think about answering your question Meade, I have one for you.

On what grounds do you dismiss the discussion of worship so sneeringly as a red herring? It was not in response to anything that you posted and did not involve you.

Just because this happens to be a discussion on the subject of religion doesn't make it all about you...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry but you are mistaken, Sean.

1. I requested your willingness (Gob's too) to respond to my question (freshly posed as adapted) without digression into other matters.

2. I gave two examples (and added two more later) of topics/questions that (were fine and dandy in exchanges with Econo and CP but) would be red herrings IF given in response to my question now.

Would either you or Gob now consider responding to the question posed? I rather hoped so.

Meade

[Sean]

I think I might pass on your question Meade. I do not take well to such condescension. Your assumptions of 'red herrings' were uncalled for and insulting.

Now why don't you read that part of your post again.

I need to correct/amplify my statement above (in bold) and then ask Sean and Gob if they are willing to offer a serious answer instead of red herrings about worship and a description of unbelief ("It's all about my views really") disguised as a christian response

I was mistaken?

Bollocks! I responded to your words as they were written. I will not be held responsible for your inability to get your point across.
Sheesh! I like you Meade but you do have this tendency to get a bit precious and arsey on the subject of religion.

[Lord Jim]

I like you Meade but you do have this tendency to get a bit precious and arsey on the subject of religion.

Well, we all have our crosses to bear Sean....

I feel the same way about you when the topic turns to gun control...

[Gob]

My first attempt at catching a herring (and subject to correction):

An objective good is that which, in and of itself, is right and good regardless of who and how many people think it is?

(The word "good" here is a single example of many words that could go there.

Keep it in context though - let's not start arguing about "right" and "good". The discussion (I believe) is whether life can be "meaningful" absent God. I assume that by "meaningful" other people suggest the ideas of goodness, righteousness, fitness, value, great worth, etc. in a positive sense

Of course, if "meaningful" encompasses any and all actions regardless of effect - that is, pouring water on a burning person is as "meaningful" as pouring on petrol - there's nothing to discuss. Again, if all things in nature are defined as the total of all things that have, do and will exist, then no-one could reasonably argue with that definition, including me.

Meade

My honest answer? I don't care.

God is a myth.

[rubato]

My first attempt at catching a herring (and subject to correction):

An objective good is that which, in and of itself, is right and good regardless of who and how many people think it is?

(The word "good" here is a single example of many words that could go there.

Keep it in context though - let's not start arguing about "right" and "good". The discussion (I believe) is whether life can be "meaningful" absent God. I assume that by "meaningful" other people suggest the ideas of goodness, righteousness, fitness, value, great worth, etc. in a positive sense

Of course, if "meaningful" encompasses any and all actions regardless of effect - that is, pouring water on a burning person is as "meaningful" as pouring on petrol - there's nothing to discuss. Again, if all things in nature are defined as the total of all things that have, do and will exist, then no-one could reasonably argue with that definition, including me.

Meade

"The only thing which is good in itself is a good will."


Immanuel Kant

[dales]

"The only thing which is good in itself is a good will."


Immanuel Kant

I've tried donating goods to the Goodwill, they wouldn't take them.

Fcuk 'em...............I'll donate to the Salvation Army instead.

[Econoline]

"The only thing which is good in itself is a good will."

Immanuel Kant

I've tried donating goods to the Goodwill, they wouldn't take them.

Wouldn't take them? Or Kant???

[dales]

Both

[Joe Guy]

I wonder why Immanuel Kant?

[Crackpot]

He's a real pissant

[Andrew D]

Of course, if "meaningful" encompasses any and all actions regardless of effect - that is, pouring water on a burning person is as "meaningful" as pouring on petrol - there's nothing to discuss.

The problem, General, (at least for me, and I suspect that it is a problem for at least some others here) is not whether an action is meaningful "regardless of [its] effect".

Rather, my problem is your apparent assertion that only an eternal effect is "meaningful"; i.e., is of any significance. I take that to be your assertion primarily on the basis of your statement that "any achievement which will be utterly obliterated ... is no achievement at all."

As far as my concededly limited mind can gather, that is simply not true.

If I give water to a thirsty person, the fact (if such it be) that my act will be, in the end, "utterly obliterated" does not deprive my act of significance. It may detract from the significance of my act, but it does not reduce the significance of my act to zero.

I live a finite life. (That is not to take a position on eternal life; it is merely to point out that the length of time between one's birth and one's death is not eternal.) Whatever eternal consequences my actions may or may not have, they also have consequences in my finite life. And they also have consequences in other people's finite lives.

If I give water to a thirsty person, that act matters simply because it relieves, even if only for a moment, that person's thirst. It reduces, if only minutely and if only momentarily, the amount of suffering in the world.

From a moral perspective, how can that not matter?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sean - I hear you. Before revisiting the thread, I had been thinking about it last night and again this morning and decided that I did not like what I'd said (or perhaps I mean the way I said it)(or both) in several places. I'm sorry for that.

Andrew, I get frustrated sometimes. Of course it matters. But why does it matter? On what philosophical ground is relieving a person's thirst worthwhile? Is it just because you and I think it is - or is it because it actually is? That's what I can't get my thoughts around

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

But why does it matter? On what philosophical ground is relieving a person's thirst worthwhile?

It's doing the "next right thing". Don't know if it has a "moral" component but it's part do unto others... If I were dieing of thirst, I would want someone to give me water, thus I would give a person in that situation water.

[Joe Guy]

Not everything needs 'philosophical ground' to be meaningful,Genl.

Does a bird build a nest because it believes it is the right thing to do?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Joe, I think (but am not sure) that a bird builds a nest from pure instinct - it is not a decision at all. I thought that nature, red in tooth and claw, is amoral -brute facts with no value judgement assignable and hence without meaning in themself?

Is helping others then just pure instinct with no thought? If so, I would think that fits exactly the definition of an act without "meaning" but maybe I'm just wrong.

I still don't see how one can be comforted by the knowledge that one has acted out of instinct - surely there must be an element of choice which makes the helpful act more "meaningful" or more "valuable" than an unhelpful one?

oldr, I see your point but why is it the next "right" thing? I agree with you that the teaching of Jesus to do unto others as you would have them do to you is exactly correct - but if he's just a man and that's just his idea, what makes it "right"? It's useful for sure but utilitarianism hasn't stood the test of time.

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

but if he's just a man and that's just his idea, what makes it "right"?

Your basically asking "is there a universal right and wrong". Am I correct?
I contemplated that question while under the influence of much stronger substances than alcohol while in college.
Never did figure out an answer.

[Joe Guy]

Joe, I think (but am not sure) that a bird builds a nest from pure instinct - it is not a decision at all. I thought that nature, red in tooth and claw, is amoral -brute facts with no value judgement assignable and hence without meaning in themself?

My point is that a bird building a nest is doing something meaningful. Whether it is instinct or a “decision” doesn’t have any bearing on the meaningfulness.

Is helping others then just pure instinct with no thought? If so, I would think that fits exactly the definition of an act without "meaning" but maybe I'm just wrong.

I believe the act of helping others is both thoughtful and instinctual for some people, but purely instinctual acts can also be meaningful.

I still don't see how one can be comforted by the knowledge that one has acted out of instinct - surely there must be an element of choice which makes the helpful act more "meaningful" or more "valuable" than an unhelpful one?

One can be comforted that his/her instincts are to cause meaningful things to happen. And one can make the decision to do as much meaningful things in his/her life as possible.