C.S. Lewis vs. Friedrich Nietzsche

Cypress said:
I was always on Team Plato, not Team Protagoras.
.
Team Protagoras proclaimed that "man is the measure of all things". The majority can decide on a whim, or at any given time, what an acceptable moral standard is.

Team Plato believed that there is some kind of enduring standard of virtue we can gain knowledge of through our exercise of human reason.
Click to expand...

We had a Discussion about 'Polygamy' on Amazon.
One guy said it wasn't the same for women and men.
Another said what was good for the Goose was good for the Gander.
Then the first guy said 'Men have multiple wives for Children, Women have multiple husbands for Pleasure'.
Hmmmm ... so that was an interesting twist.
Anyway, what does the 'Transcendental Code' say about all of this?
 
Cypress said:
I was always on Team Plato, not Team Protagoras.
.
Team Protagoras proclaimed that "man is the measure of all things". The majority can decide on a whim, or at any given time, what an acceptable moral standard is.

Team Plato believed that there is some kind of enduring standard of virtue we can gain knowledge of through our exercise of human reason.
Click to expand...

Problem is 85% of the people bullshit themselves ,or are sheep!
Few use " human reason" those that do are out of the loop!
 
Cypress said:
You keep backtracking away from your claim that the majority decides at any given time what an acceptable moral standard is.

And here, you failed in your attempt to word-smith me. So what is the next failure on the agenda?
Click to expand...

I'm asking a specific Question. You seem well acquainted with 'Natural Law' and 'Transcendental codes'. I'm asking for THE Answer.
 
Cypress said:
You keep backtracking away from your claim that the majority decides at any given time what an acceptable moral standard is.

And here, you failed in your attempt to word-smith me. So what is the next failure on the agenda?
Click to expand...

OK. 'Polygamy'. That's a tough one.
Let's go with 'Land Titles' then. Anything you want to proclaim about that? The 'Natural Law' about who gets what? Some 'Transcendental Code' that determines what is moral and ethical about Land Distribution?
 
There are three ethical systems Deontological, Consequentialism, and Virtue ethics.
Deontological is the idea that morals are self existing in themselves.
Consequentialism is a form of utilitarianism.
Virtue ethics is the idea that there are a list of good actions that we aspire.
 
People like Cypress are for deontology. They are basically theists who believe God makes the moral law.

Consequentialists look at morals in terms of outcomes. Is murder bad? Well, it takes someone's life and harms the community.
 
BidenPresident said:
There are three ethical systems Deontological, Consequentialism, and Virtue ethics.
Deontological is the idea that morals are self existing in themselves.
Consequentialism is a form of utilitarianism.
Virtue ethics is the idea that there are a list of good actions that we aspire.
Click to expand...

Do you think this is a universal system as Cypress is asserting or simply a human devised system, something that works for us and our limitations?
 
BidenPresident said:
People like Cypress are for deontology. They are basically theists who believe God makes the moral law.

Consequentialists look at morals in terms of outcomes. Is murder bad? Well, it takes someone's life and harms the community.
Click to expand...

By your statement, you appear to be a deontologist.

I lean toward consequentialism if I understand it correctly. Killing isn't always bad. "Murder" is a legal definition. There are righteous kills and nonrighteous. An example of a nonrighteous kill is to kill simply for the pleasure of it.

Hunting is fun, but as long as the animal is harvested, it serves a purpose. Killing for some tusks doesn't meet that standard since they leave the rest of the animal behind.

A righteous kill would be a Russian assassinating Putin just as he was about to order the launch of nuclear missiles. It serves a purpose and that purpose is for the common good.
 
BidenPresident said:
People like Cypress are for deontology. They are basically theists who believe God makes the moral law.

Consequentialists look at morals in terms of outcomes. Is murder bad? Well, it takes someone's life and harms the community.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think Cypress is stuck in the 'there is a God behind everything' mindset.
 
Jack said:
OK. 'Polygamy'. That's a tough one.
Let's go with 'Land Titles' then. Anything you want to proclaim about that? The 'Natural Law' about who gets what? Some 'Transcendental Code' that determines what is moral and ethical about Land Distribution?
Click to expand...

Marriage customs and property ownership are not a significant consideration in the history of moral philosophy.

I doubt Plato, Kant, or Descartes ever devoted much ink to contemplations on marriage contracts or real estate deals. The only one I can think of who held that private property was a universal moral right was John Locke.

The history of humanity has constantly, for thousands of years, been on a trajectory bending towards more equality, more fairness, more justice, more freedom, more respect for the human dignity of the individual.

Why do you think the arc of history and human experience consistently bent towards that direction?

Is it just total and inexplicable random chance??

I think it is because simply by virtue of being human, we sense that equality, fairness, justice, freedom are at the foundation of a natural moral order.
 
Cypress said:
So are you ever going to admit you failed in your "gotcha" attempt to play word games with my use of the term transcendent?

--> https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-vs-Friedrich-Nietzsche&p=5031142#post5031142
Click to expand...

:) I'm just trying to have a conversation with you about 'Morals and Ethics'.

I'm asking about specific things that are difficult to come up with a 'correct' answer. 'Polygamy' is an interesting topic.
Should an Alpha Male be allowed to have multiple wives?
Which brings up an adjoining question about Alpha Females, would they be allowed to have multiple husbands?
Which is better for the 'Family Unit' versus 'Personal Freedom'?
I don't think there is any 'Natural Law' or 'Transcendental Code' here. It's something the Majority would have to come up with, and may change over time.
You know, something like Homosexuality. For thousands of years, these people have been ostracized from Society, but now embraced. There wasn't any 'Natural Law' in play here.

'Land Titles' are another interesting topic. Ever since Man changed from Hunter/Gatherer to Farmer/Rancher, Land Ownership became a contentious issue. Placing people into Rich (people with Land) and Poor (people without Land) categories. No 'Transcendent Code' here.
 
Cypress said:
Marriage customs and property ownership are not a significant consideration in the history of moral philosophy.

I doubt Plato, Kant, or Descartes ever devoted much ink to contemplations on marriage contracts or real estate deals. The only one I can think of who held that private property was a universal moral right was John Locke.

The history of humanity has constantly, for thousands of years, been on a trajectory bending towards more equality, more fairness, more justice, more freedom, more respect for the human dignity of the individual.

Why do you think the arc of history and human experience consistently bent towards that direction?

Is it just total and inexplicable random chance??

I think it is because simply by virtue of being human, we sense that equality, fairness, justice, freedom are at the foundation of a natural moral order.
Click to expand...

Well, since it is a Major Factor in Life, I'll have to disagree.

I'm not sure you know what you are talking about.
"According to the latest Fed data, the top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion (or 30.4% of all household wealth in the U.S.), while the bottom 50% of the population holds just $2.1 trillion combined (or 1.9% of all wealth)."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyb...alth-than-bottom-50-combined/?sh=15a644b05179

"A study published earlier this week by Swiss bank UBS and accounting firm PwC found that the total wealth of the world’s 2,189 billionaires soared to a record-setting high of $10.2 trillion in late July, obliterating the previous record of $8.9 trillion recorded at the end of 2017."


Cypress: "I think it is because simply by virtue of being human, we sense that equality, fairness, justice, freedom are at the foundation of a natural moral order."
Jack: Call me crazy, but if 'the natural moral order' is 50% of Americans get to divvy up the 2% of overall Wealth, that uh ... doesn't seem 'equal, fair, nor just'.


:smh:
 
Cypress said:
Marriage customs and property ownership are not a significant consideration in the history of moral philosophy.

I doubt Plato, Kant, or Descartes ever devoted much ink to contemplations on marriage contracts or real estate deals. The only one I can think of who held that private property was a universal moral right was John Locke.

The history of humanity has constantly, for thousands of years, been on a trajectory bending towards more equality, more fairness, more justice, more freedom, more respect for the human dignity of the individual.

Why do you think the arc of history and human experience consistently bent towards that direction?

Is it just total and inexplicable random chance??

I think it is because simply by virtue of being human, we sense that equality, fairness, justice, freedom are at the foundation of a natural moral order.
Click to expand...

Because the need for it to bend in another direction became unnecessary.

For example, polygamy used to be necessary as headcount was required and infant mortality and death in childbirth claimed victims at a far greater pace than today. The Mormons had a lot of trouble with this as the need was on the decline where they originated but was not the case in the wilderness where they were headed.
 
Celticguy said:
Because the need for it to bend in another direction became unnecessary.

For example, polygamy used to be necessary as headcount was required and infant mortality and death in childbirth claimed victims at a far greater pace than today. The Mormons had a lot of trouble with this as the need was on the decline where they originated but was not the case in the wilderness where they were headed.
Click to expand...

Human primate males wanting a lot of sexual partners to ensure the transmission of their genes is a base, evolutionary mechanism.

I doubt it was ever the result of careful and thoughtful social planning by tribes of humans, or bronze age kingdoms.

And it doesn't explain the universal arc of the human experience bending towards increased fairness, increased justice, increased equality, increased freedom.
 
Cypress said:
Human primate males wanting a lot of sexual partners to ensure the transmission of their genes is a base, evolutionary mechanism.

I doubt it was ever the result of careful and thoughtful social planning by tribes of humans, or bronze age kingdoms.

And it doesn't explain the universal arc of the human experience bending towards increased fairness, increased justice, increased equality, increased freedom.
Click to expand...


While many non human species defer to having the strongest male being the one "gettting lucky" and it stemming from basic instinct, I think as homoserines developed there absolutely WAS an enforced decision to tilt toward poligamy and away from strictly survival of the fittest. I have zero doubt the wimins were always uncomfortable with the arrangement but they did understand the need. So as circumstances changed, so did the practice adapt to realities.
 
Celticguy said:
While many non human species defer to having the strongest male being the one "gettting lucky" and it stemming from basic instinct, I think as homoserines developed there absolutely WAS an enforced decision to tilt toward poligamy and away from strictly survival of the fittest. I have zero doubt the wimins were always uncomfortable with the arrangement but they did understand the need. So as circumstances changed, so did the practice adapt to realities.
Click to expand...

I just think there is some form of a transcedent moral order against which humanity measures other basic ethical activities.

The fact that this premise is reflected in both the French Declaration of Universal Rights of Man, the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter, and the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights shows unequivocally that the world at large recognizes that by virtue of being human, we recognize there is some natural moral order we all measure basic ethical activities against
 
Cypress said:
I just think there is some form of a transcedent moral order against which humanity measures other basic ethical activities.

The fact that this premise is reflected in both the French Declaration of Universal Rights of Man, the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter, and the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights shows unequivocally that the world at large recognizes that by virtue of being human, we recognize there is some natural moral order we all measure basic ethical activities against
Click to expand...


or...

it is simply codifying a shift in societal thinking.

Of course women would always have difficulties with this and lets face it, given that then are half the populations (roughly) they DID have possible recourse. SO quite naturally when circumstances changed so did the rules. Cads would continue to bang anything they could find the hips on and vice versa but normal people would do the right thing.

But that girl porpoise would wait and see which boy porpoise demonstrated superiority to see who shs got jiggy with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top