Right and Wrong?

[Orenholt]

The question of whether or not it is "wrong" to punish criminals, given that causality is ultimately responsible for his actions, is meaningless.
.......
Trying to ascertain right and wrong in these kinds of matters is futile. Right and wrong are subjective judgments. They chop and change depending on a person�s fundamental values.

Gasp!

How can he say that right and wrong are totally subjective?

Does he not do a 180 in the next few sentences?

A far more intelligent approach would be to simply accept the obvious truth that the issue of punishment is determined by practical concerns only. Since a measure of order and social harmony is needed for the maintenance of civilized life, deterrents are needed for those who wish to behave in a mindless destructive fashion. If these deterrents were to be removed, the rule of the jungle would quickly take over and the very worst elements of the human race would soon be ruling society.

Wouldn't that mean that right and wrong behaviors are NOT subjective and based on how they affect or have the potential to affect society's order and harmony? Wouldn't that mean that there ARE ultimate rights and wrongs to be discovered?


Also on a related note, what about rehabilitation instead of "punishment"?



(sorry if I'm making too many threads I just have a lot on my mind)

[Russell Parr]

While right and wrong are subjective in the ultimate sense, that doesn't stop us from using the concept of right and wrong for various reasons. The problem is when people cease using it for reasons, for the sake of reason itself, and use it for something else, like say, emotional satisfaction.

"I know it's wrong, but it feels so right."

[Orenholt]

While right and wrong are subjective in the ultimate sense, that doesn't stop us from using the concept of right and wrong for various reasons. The problem is when people cease using it for reasons, for the sake of reason itself, and use it for something else, like say, emotional satisfaction.

"I know it's wrong, but it feels so right."

If you really KNOW something is wrong it wouldn't feel right.
That sounds more like a case of "I know that so-and-so says it's wrong but it feels right to me".

Feeling "good" and feeling "right" aren't always the same.
Cheating on your spouse might feel good physically but it might not feel right. They're totally different forms of emotional satisfaction.

[Russell Parr]

Makes no difference. Since emotional satisfaction is the end goal of the wrong-doer, and doing what is right results in dissatisfaction, then he will gravitate to doing what is wrong to the degree that he is unreasonable about his desires.

If, however, his end goal is to become completely reasonable, for the sake of being reasonable, then he will act out of reason despite the emotional dissatisfaction he might endure in such pursuit. As long as he endures the displeasure of not seeking egotistical pleasures and continue to build mental habits based in reason, the dissatisfaction will eventually dissipate, as his reason uproots the ego as the basis of thought.

While the pursuer may experience emotional satisfaction during progress, this is in fact only to the degree that he is still under the influence of the ego, in the form of attachment. What is left in completion, in enlightenment, is the lack of need or desire for satisfaction. One is simply reasonable.

[Orenholt]

Makes no difference. Since emotional satisfaction is the end goal of the wrong-doer, and doing what is right results in dissatisfaction, then he will gravitate to doing what is wrong to the degree that he is unreasonable about his desires.

Ah but do you forget that doing something that's "wrong" often causes negative feelings like guilt?
The idea of cheating on one's spouse might make one feel so guilty that that they change their mind about it and decide NOT to cheat.
It's a balancing act that's up to the individual to decide which they think would bring GREATER satisfaction.
The problem arises when people don't think about the long term consequences of their actions.

[Russell Parr]

Ah but do you forget that doing something that's "wrong" often causes negative feelings like guilt?
The idea of cheating on one's spouse might make one feel so guilty that that they change their mind about it and decide NOT to cheat.

Yet guilt simply plays a lesser role to the cheater who gains immense satisfaction in having sex with other women, despite the consequences.

It's a balancing act that's up to the individual to decide which they think would bring GREATER satisfaction.

Indeed. And to the degree that the individual is reasonable about his choices, the less likely he is in making bad ones. Given this, of what level of importance is the pursuit of wisdom compared to the pursuit of satisfaction in the unreasonable cheater?

The problem arises when people don't think about the long term consequences of their actions.

In what way at all does this not require more reason?

[Orenholt]

Yet guilt simply plays a lesser role to the cheater who gains immense satisfaction in having sex with other women, despite the consequences.

Correct.

Indeed. And to the degree that the individual is reasonable about his choices, the less likely he is in making bad ones.

Correct again.

Given this, of what level of importance is the pursuit of wisdom compared to the pursuit of satisfaction in the unreasonable cheater?

Obviously wisdom doesn't matter as much to an unreasonable person.

In what way at all does this not require more reason?

It does require more reason than thinking short term.

[Russell Parr]

The fact of the matter is, the seeker must ultimately drop the desire for satisfaction to become fully reasonable, because desires enforce a dynamic of imbalance in ones thinking that doesn't reflect reality in the ultimate sense.

[Pincho Paxton]

Complete 180 degree turn in that first post to the second quote.

[Orenholt]

The fact of the matter is, the seeker must ultimately drop the desire for satisfaction to become fully reasonable, because desires enforce a dynamic of imbalance in ones thinking that doesn't reflect reality in the ultimate sense.

How does one determine what's "reasonable"?

[Russell Parr]

By way of deductive logic/reasoning. By way of determining what exactly is true of existence, consciousness, and Reality and applying that truth(s) to one's perceptions.

[Orenholt]

By way of deductive logic/reasoning. By way of determining what exactly is true of existence, consciousness, and Reality and applying that truth(s) to one's perceptions.

Can you give me an example of how to determine something that's "reasonable"?

[Russell Parr]

One discovers the limitations of the dual concepts like love/hate, right/wrong, realizes how the ego (attachment) enforces them in an illogical fashion, then discontinues using them in a delusional manner.

The person becomes more reasonable.

[Orenholt]

One discovers the limitations of the dual concepts like love/hate, right/wrong, realizes how the ego (attachment) enforces them in an illogical fashion, then discontinues using them in a delusional manner.

The person becomes more reasonable.

No, I meant to give an actual example.

And give me an example of how you decide what's important.

[Russell Parr]

I'll give a mundane example, using the baseball player analogy from one of your posts elsewhere:

The kid enjoys playing baseball. As winning is emotionally satisfying, his ego becomes attached to winning/avoidance of losing. Fear of losing grows, and damages his overall enjoyment of baseball.

If, in "higher thought", the kid realized by that the participation in the game of baseball necessitates winning/losing, he can begin to uproot the egotistical attachment (lower thought) to winning as the motive to play the game. To the degree that he is emotionally attached to winning, it will be harder for him to simply enjoy playing baseball for the game itself. This attachment must necessarily express itself as a representation of the ignorance that winning/losing is simply an inherent concept involved in the game.

While this does prove a valid point, I won't neglect that the kid's enjoyment (egotistical satisfaction) of playing baseball is the reason why he plays it in the first place. Philosophical wisdom takes one much further than this, as it involves completely giving oneself to the "higher thought", and dropping the ego as a result. For example, say the ball player grew into an adult that gained an interest in philosophy, as he remembers vividly how the use of logic restored his enjoyment of baseball for the sake of playing it.

As he goes deeper, he might realize that the mere enjoyment of baseball necessitates the experience of joy/boredom. He realizes that his attachment to baseball (as a source of enjoyment) brings both pleasure and pain. To the degree of depth that he observes this dynamic in all of his experiences, he begins to gain an appreciation for the logical truth that all dual concepts (e.g. right/wrong, good/bad) are based in pure subjectivity; there is no objective reality to them.

As he ventures deeper still, eventually the desire for enjoyment, and desire itself, is inquired. As it turns out, it is the egotistical desire in itself that necessitates the experience of dual concepts like attainment of happiness/avoidance of sadness. The only way to transcend this is to rid oneself of egotistical desire, ie. becoming fully logical.

[Orenholt]

As he goes deeper, he might realize that the mere enjoyment of baseball necessitates the experience of joy/boredom. He realizes that his attachment to baseball (as a source of enjoyment) brings both pleasure and pain. To the degree of depth that he observes this dynamic in all of his experiences, he begins to gain an appreciation for the logical truth that all dual concepts (e.g. right/wrong, good/bad) are based in pure subjectivity; there is no objective reality to them.

But let's say that you gain joy from eating your favorite soup. Wouldn't you say that eating it with a spoon is more "right" when compared to trying to eat it with say, a lawn mower?
Why is that?

As he ventures deeper still, eventually the desire for enjoyment, and desire itself, is inquired. As it turns out, it is the egotistical desire in itself that necessitates the experience of dual concepts like attainment of happiness/avoidance of sadness. The only way to transcend this is to rid oneself of egotistical desire, ie. becoming fully logical.

But how do you know that being "fully logical" is important?

[Russell Parr]

But let's say that you gain joy from eating your favorite soup. Wouldn't you say that eating it with a spoon is more "right" when compared to trying to eat it with say, a lawn mower?
Why is that?

Let's say you enjoy the adrenaline of self-inflicted pain. Wouldn't you say that cutting your wrist with a sharp razor blade is more "right" when compared to trying to cut yourself with say, a stick of butter?
Why is that?

Serious answer: because spoons are for eating soup, and lawn mowers are for cutting grass.

But how do you know that being "fully logical" is important?

Not by sentiment, that's for sure.

[Orenholt]

Let's say you enjoy the adrenaline of self-inflicted pain. Wouldn't you say that cutting your wrist with a sharp razor blade is more "right" when compared to trying to cut yourself with say, a stick of butter?
Why is that?

In your mocking answer you actually made a point.
Right and wrong are circumstantial to what the goal is.

Serious answer: because spoons are for eating soup, and lawn mowers are for cutting grass.

What if I invent something that doesn't work for its intended purpose? Does that still mean that it is better to use it than something else?
The reason that you would use a spoon is not because someone INTENDED it for soup. For all we know they could have intended it for cereal. We use it because it's more efficient than a lawn mower. Do you get where I'm going?

Not by sentiment, that's for sure.

Then how?

[Russell Parr]

In your mocking answer you actually made a point.
Right and wrong are circumstantial to what the goal is.

And if the goal is emotional satisfaction, then the seeker is in danger of delusional acts like sadism (in which inflicted pain is found pleasurable) to the degree that he is delusional. Even if slightly sentimental, his ignorance can cause suffering upon himself and/or others.

You've got to get it out of your head that emotion and reasoning are basically the same thing. Their only relation is in how much they contrast each other.

What if I invent something that doesn't work for its intended purpose? Does that still mean that it is better to use it than something else?
The reason that you would use a spoon is not because someone INTENDED it for soup. For all we know they could have intended it for cereal. We use it because it's more efficient than a lawn mower.

Hence, the value of reason.

Do you get where I'm going?

Actually no, because this in no way whatsoever supports the point you were trying to make.

Not by sentiment, that's for sure.

Then how?

Reason over emotion. The opposite of sentiment.

[Orenholt]

And if the goal is emotional satisfaction, then the seeker is in danger of delusional acts like sadism (in which inflicted pain is found pleasurable) to the degree that he is delusional. Even if slightly sentimental, his ignorance can cause suffering upon himself and/or others.

1.) What do you think the end goal should be if not emotional satisfaction?
2.) What if someone gains no pleasure in hurting others but still does it anyway? Does that make it ok?

You've got to get it out of your head that emotion and reasoning are basically the same thing. Their only relation is in how much they contrast each other.

If anything is an illusion it's the contrast because all is one.
You're just conceptually dividing the two into separate categories.

Hence, the value of reason.

Tell me why you would want to eat your soup more efficiently with a spoon rather than a lawn mower.
Could it possibly be because you WANT to eat the soup as efficiently as possible in order to satisfy your hunger?

Reason over emotion. The opposite of sentiment.

Ok, just for the sake of argument, let's say that they are opposites and that reason is the way to go.
How do you "rationally" decide something simple? How do you decide whether blue or green is better to wear?

[Getoriks]

I think what Orenholt is trying to say here is that, no matter how much reasoning we do or use, we are still simply doing it or using it for the purpose of satisfying ourselves, or for the purpose of a goal we want to accomplish. Then, from this, assuming it is true, she is taking the next step which seems logical in her mind, also trying to say that self-satisfaction, and never reason, is always our "true master".

I understand where you are coming from Orenholt, but I don't think you're actually being logical, and so I must disagree. Yet again, I'll have to explain in detail in a later post. But just to give a preview: the reason we don't need self-satisfaction as our true master is because... we don't need to do anything at all, and indeed we can't! We don't need any goals or purposes, knowing full-well that Nature is the only doer of everything, and even then, that Nature need not do anything! This is one reason why enlightenment is sometimes described as being like "liberation".

[Orenholt]

I understand where you are coming from Orenholt, but I don't think you're actually being logical, and so I must disagree. Yet again, I'll have to explain in detail in a later post. But just to give a preview: the reason we don't need self-satisfaction as our true master is because... we don't need to do anything at all, and indeed we can't! We don't need any goals or purposes, knowing full-well that Nature is the only doer of everything, and even then, that Nature need not do anything! This is one reason why enlightenment is sometimes described as being like "liberation".

In one sense, no, ourselves do not differentiate from the universe but as long as the automatons called "humans" have the illusion of having choices they will still have a master. And that master is the ego and its desires are its commands. If we acknowledge that choice is only an illusion, it makes no difference. We still must "make choices" in our everyday lives and they are still subject to the tyranny of the ego. There is no escaping it. It is the will of the universe for us to have egos and emotional reactions (or lack or reactions). It's the way we are biologically designed. In going along with our egos, we are in fact letting the universe pull our puppet-strings.

[Russell Parr]

In one sense, no, ourselves do not differentiate from the universe but as long as the automatons called "humans" have the illusion of having choices they will still have a master. And that master is the ego and its desires are its commands. If we acknowledge that choice is only an illusion, it makes no difference. We still must "make choices" in our everyday lives and they are still subject to the tyranny of the ego. There is no escaping it. It is the will of the universe for us to have egos and emotional reactions (or lack or reactions). It's the way we are biologically designed. In going along with our egos, we are in fact letting the universe pull our puppet-strings.

This attitude sounds quite self defeating. It reeks of "inherent sin" that Christians believe in. Why must we subject ourselves to whims of emotions just for temporal fleeting satisfaction? The ego can supply no more than this, because it's inherent delusion, ie. attachment to appearances, is the very substance of ignorance.

[Orenholt]

This attitude sounds quite self defeating. It reeks of "inherent sin" that Christians believe in. Why must we subject ourselves to whims of emotions just for temporal fleeting satisfaction? The ego can supply no more than this, because it's inherent delusion, ie. attachment to appearances, is the very substance of ignorance.

I don't see how it's self defeating.
If you look at my example from the "Necessity is the Mother of Invention" thread that's like saying that having a physical body and a stomach is bad. The stomach cannot cause you to do anything more than become hungry and find something to eat. But you enjoy the feeling of being full with food that you like. Sure you could kill yourself and eliminate the need to eat but what would be the fun in that unless you were doing it to eliminate EXTREME suffering without hope?

The concept of self may be imaginary but that doesn't make it bad.

Please address my post that I made to you specifically.

[Dan Rowden]

The concept of self may be imaginary but that doesn't make it bad.

Up to the point where the imagined/practical concept becomes a belief in something more real and inherent; then the trouble begins.