The Greater Good

[ThePainefulTruth]

I posted this in another thread, and thought it would make a good thread of its own:

Natural morality's corollary #1: THERE IS NO "GREATER GOOD" WHICH JUSTIFIES A LIE, yet that is the most ubiquitous violation of the Truth.

Two of the three purveyor's of Truth, religion and politics, use that justification as a matter of course, albeit mostly covert with the faithful. Science, the third purveyor, has a much better record, though it has slipped up once in a while, like when it gets involved with politics à la global warming.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Science is a practice, not a political or moral structure.
It does not define a good or evil, it's practitioners do.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Science is a practice, not a political or moral structure.
It does not define a good or evil, it's practitioners do.

Yet they all purport to engage in the pursuit of the Truth, and like the other two, is only corrupted by those within it. And no, science does not define evil, it reveals it by revealing the Truth--while religion and politics, much more often than not, obscure the Truth.

In any case, corollary #1 still stands.

 

[LuisDantas]

Two of the three purveyor's of Truth, religion and politics, use that justification as a matter of course,

When did either become a purveyor of truth?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yet they all purport to engage in the pursuit of the Truth

Science is not about "purveying truth" either. It is about obtaining reliable knowledge. There is a significant if often overblown phylosophical difference.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yet they all purport to engage in the pursuit of the Truth, and like the other two, is only corrupted by those within it.

I deny that science is corruptible, unlike religion and politics.
Having no moral basis in the first place takes away that possibility..

And no, science does not define evil, it reveals it by revealing the Truth--while religion and politics, much more often than not, obscure the Truth.

If science reveals evil it is not on purpose, it would just be a byproduct of our pursuit for knowledge.
I agree with your other statement.

 

[Nietzsche]

I posted this in another thread, and thought it would make a good thread of its own:

Natural morality's corollary #1: THERE IS NO "GREATER GOOD" -

GREATER GOOD.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

When did either become a purveyor of truth?

"Truth" appears in the Bible alone 235 times.

Science is not about "purveying truth" either. It is about obtaining reliable knowledge. There is a significant if often overblown phylosophical difference.

You have inadvertently stumbled into my theory of Truth, to wit: Truth has four (maybe more?) aspects--knowledge, justice, love and beauty....pure objectivity (knowledge) to pure subjectivity (beauty/art), and combined in the other two.

I deny that science is corruptible, unlike religion and politics.

Philosophy and the other soft "sciences" deal in speculation, which is fine, I do it all the time, but if it can't produce any evidence, it is nothing more. And If it does produce hard evidence, then that evidence is moved to the realm of genuine science.

Having no moral basis in the first place takes away that possibility.

Just because God doesn't exist or interact in the universe, doesn't mean that there isn't an inherent basis for morality, there is, our full self-awareness.

If science reveals evil it is not on purpose, it would just be a byproduct of our pursuit for knowledge.
I agree with your other statement.

Do we not take DNA samples to reveal evil...on purpose?

GREATER GOOD.

Is there a question in there?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I deny that science is corruptible, unlike religion and politics.
Having no moral basis in the first place takes away that possibility.

How convenient.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I posted this in another thread, and thought it would make a good thread of its own:

Natural morality's corollary #1: THERE IS NO "GREATER GOOD" WHICH JUSTIFIES A LIE, yet that is the most ubiquitous violation of the Truth.

Two of the three purveyor's of Truth, religion and politics, use that justification as a matter of course, albeit mostly covert with the faithful. Science, the third purveyor, has a much better record, though it has slipped up once in a while, like when it gets involved with politics à la global warming.

I think that typical morality is based on human sentiment.

For better or for worse.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Truth" appears in the Bible alone 235 times.

If you say so.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I posted this in another thread, and thought it would make a good thread of its own:

Natural morality's corollary #1: THERE IS NO "GREATER GOOD" WHICH JUSTIFIES A LIE, yet that is the most ubiquitous violation of the Truth.

Two of the three purveyor's of Truth, religion and politics, use that justification as a matter of course, albeit mostly covert with the faithful. Science, the third purveyor, has a much better record, though it has slipped up once in a while, like when it gets involved with politics à la global warming.

It may not justify a lie, but even God was willing to word the Truth very carefully to get His way

What part of climate change was untruthful?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think that typical morality is based on human sentiment.

For better or for worse.

Is the Golden Rule, my four simple prohibitions, are sentimental??? All the other "morality" is stuff piled onto that by the clergy and politicians for control purposes. And any individual codes of conduct not determining how we honor the rights of others, are subjective virtues

If you say so.

KJV, I counted....or least I got it from the Blue Letter Bible, which counted. I trust you aren't going to quibble about the OP on the chance it might just be 221 or 666 or sunthin'.

It may not justify a lie, but even God was willing to word the Truth very carefully to get His way

God, by my definition anyway, it the embodiment of Truth, conscious or otherwise. And our having free will means we make all the choices no matter what...ostensibly so we know we can handle free will in the Hereafter, if there is one.

What part of climate change was untruthful?

Well first, the part right there, and a perfect example of the statement in the OP. When global warming didn't show, they changed the name to Climate Change, for the "greater good"--that being socialism. No matter how obviously phony, people went right along with it, though some didn't criticiz it but still called it climate change.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Is the Golden Rule, my four simple prohibitions, are sentimental???

Yes.

Though I am not implying that is a bad thing.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes.

Though I am not implying that is a bad thing.

You're saying that prohibitions against murder, slavery, theft, self-defense, and the force or fraud used to deny those rights are......sentimental?

 

[EtuMalku]

Perennial philosophy is the understanding that all the world's Right Hand Path religions share a single, universal doctrine. This doctrine posits that the highest good that human life can achieve is through the union with a Supreme Being / Energy of the Universe. The way in which this is achieved is through a deception of one's conscious awareness into believing that one has been accepted by this Supreme Being / Energy otherwise known as the objective universe.

I don't see where science fits into this.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Perennial philosophy is the understanding that all the world's Right Hand Path religions share a single, universal doctrine. This doctrine posits that the highest good that human life can achieve is through the union with a Supreme Being / Energy of the Universe. The way in which this is achieved is through a deception of one's conscious awareness into believing that one has been accepted by this Supreme Being / Energy otherwise known as the objective universe.

I don't see where science fits into this.

That's because it doesn't. What you're pointing to is phony philosophy--a straw man. True philosophy, like science, focuses on Truth and tries to find evidence for it; as opposed to saying this is good or that is moral while putting them on pedestals labeled truth. They claim divine authority, but nothing has ever been produced to support that claim except for hearsay, feelings and coincidences with more likely natural explanations. It's bass ackwards.

 

[viole]

I posted this in another thread, and thought it would make a good thread of its own:

Natural morality's corollary #1: THERE IS NO "GREATER GOOD" WHICH JUSTIFIES A LIE, yet that is the most ubiquitous violation of the Truth.

Two of the three purveyor's of Truth, religion and politics, use that justification as a matter of course, albeit mostly covert with the faithful. Science, the third purveyor, has a much better record, though it has slipped up once in a while, like when it gets involved with politics à la global warming.

Suppose I hide a jew from the nazis, during WW2.

An SS officer casually asks me whether I hide jews.

Should I lie or not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Suppose I hide a jew from the nazis, during WW2.

An SS officer casually asks me whether I hide jews.

Should I lie or not?

Ciao

- viole

Good point. I thought at first you'd found a hole in my statement. But the problem is assuming that a lie in defense of the rights of an innocent violates the Greater Good--when in fact it does the opposite. Nazis can hate Jews all they want, morally, as long as they don't violate anyone's individual rights. Justifying the "rights" of groups such as Nazis, or Jews, or anyone to defend themselves from hate with lies, only feeds the hatred and undermines the common good.

A more all encompassing case would be to look at war. What about deception there? The side that attacks or threatens to attack in an effort to violate the individual rights of their opponents, forfeits their own rights the same as a criminal forfeits his rights. Force or fraud are the two methods used in the violation of our moral rights. But if an individual or a country has forfeited their rights, force or fraud (deception) are then justified in self-defense.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Just because God doesn't exist or interact in the universe, doesn't mean that there isn't an inherent basis for morality, there is, our full self-awareness.

The basis for most morality in human beings, you mean.

Do we not take DNA samples to reveal evil...on purpose?

Nah, most of the time that's just to find a criminal or figure out who the father is.
If you want to call either of those finding evil, be my guest.
I don't see it that way.