Wax- And yet things very similar to what you describe happen every day. Just as every day a number of lemmings may or may not run off a cliff... are you somehow blaming man for that?
No, the lemmings don't have a higher consciousness and a well developed intellect. If Man decides to act like a lemming, its Man's fault. If lemmings act like lemmings, then blame their instinct if you wish.
Wax- Well that is fairly clear, what you can not do is refute that fatalism exists as a concept and has some merit.
I could find some merit in almost any philosophy, no matter how weird or deluded it is. That I could extract something worthwhile from fatalism as a philosophy is nothing special.
You claim that "Man is capable of knowing right and wrong" as if concepts like right and wrong can be universally valued.
Man is capable of many things, not all of them logical, and not all of them meritorious. Man as a logical machine is rather faulty, if we were to declare logic his primary property. Right and wrong, I do not believe in as absolute values. Right and wrong in the relative sense, I do believe in. Man destroying ecosystems is not a "right" act, since he is damaging the very thing that he lives within. Also, it suggests that Man has no higher principle than personal profit. For some people, this is the highest thing. But to me, who does not see the needs or desire of the individual as something all must bow before, I must weigh individual desire, or even national desire, within the context of the whole picture.
That is quaint but not very helpful in this case.
I also find your ideas to be "quaint", or deluded and dangerous if you prefer that description.
Were the Romans right or wrong to destroy Carthage?
They wanted to be the only major power in the Mediterranean, they got their wish and rose to be a mighty empire. Of course, we lost a great culture because of this, as was the case with the Celts and others. If you value only power, then it was right, if you value culture more, then it was a wrong, a relative wrong that is.
Were the nine hundred followers of Jim Jones right... or wrong?
Wrong. It is always some level of wrong to be deluded, even if it makes us happy. Some of those followers were forced to kill themselves or were killed, that is also a wrong, because I put a high value on human freedom and life.
Were the Chinese right or wrong in 1979 when they declared a "One Child" policy?
Wrong. They enforce the policy with forced abortions. They also increased the rate of female infanticide among the population. If you want a wrong which is not moral, then look to the demographic structure, its about to cause an economic collapse. The US thinks its going to have it bad with its Baby Boomers; thats nothing to the pain China is going to feel very soon.
We could go on forever of course but the point is you wouldn't be judging by anything other than your own morality.
Oh I can defend them on many levels if you so wish. You pitch the balls I will probably hit them.
Right for you, wrong for you... talk about delusion concerning who is master!
I am not deluded on this matter. I know who I am, and I know where I stand within the bigger picture. You are highly egocentric, I am somewhat less so. I know your master
.
Look at it this way:
If the "Black Death" had not occured then the land route between the Middle East would not have been abandoned for sea routes.
Europe would have stagnated into deeper fuedalism and expansion would have been suppressed.
And the Muslims would not look upon these events as a gift from Allah. I know events have good and bad sides. You may want to look at some of my recent Interfaith posts
.
No America and no assistance when Hitler rose.
I guess it would all be up to the USSR then, and they would have lost more than the 20 million (if I remember correctly) people that they lost.
Not fortunate for the ones that were killed but fortunate for us!
In fact, I can claim that without millions dying in the "Black Death" migrations of humans would not have taken place.
All events have unforeseen consequences some place. Of course beneficial unforeseen consequences are a weak argument as retroactive justification for human actions.
Martin Luther King Jr's father would have never met his mother if it wasn't for slavery... what are you a racist! <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Good for you? No.
A good man. If you mean it is good for me personally, I cannot say. I am not African-American, so he is not a cultural icon for me, despite his powerful words.
Good for me? Not at all my compadre.
As I said, I couldn't say. I have no idea what you look like.
But nuclear war would be good for mankind... and it really is about time don't you think?
Not really. Unless we only dropped bombs which had the world leaders and generals which called for the war strapped to them; that might be beneficial. Let those bombs drop in the middle of the Pacific; hopefully that will minimize civilian causalities.
We had a fairly good run this time, but it is required.
Next time things might be better.
As I said, you are a fatalist. Only you can say for yourself, whether you personally "had a fairly good run", but you don't get to make that choice for others. I hope mankind survives its political and technological adolescence and matures into more worthy inhabitants of this solar system.
Reply
Quote
Quick Reply
Quick Quote
Previous Topic
Index