MA: I appreciate the seriousness with which you addressed my contentions. There is a bit of hair splitting I must do as our viewpoints shake out.
This thread's question of "does intrinsic value exist" seems to preface the book. I am interested in how the book's author might frame a response, but shouldn't think that we need be restrained by it in this particular thread. Thank you again for taking the time to address my contentions.
Intrinsic good vs Intrinsic value:
My assertion is of the existence of intrinsic value not of intrinsic good. I began to use the term "good" as a hypothetical. However I do, as you suspect, believe that without the elasticity of variation, human existence, and all living beings cannot comform to an absolute good.
I am advocating that there exists intrinsic value. Defining it again, I'll state that it's the element of direction or drive or core belief that allows living beings to order a random and chaotic world. I'd love to discuss Socrates, Plato and Freud in another thread.
I'd answer your questions regarding the simpler forms of life, the diseased & the compulsive with an affirmative. They too have intrinsic value and are directing themselves using an evolving framework reflexive of their encounter with the world. Is this intrinsic value simply by the virtue of doing anything at all? YES! All living beings by the virtue of their existence are graced with choice. The choices they make, the doing of anything at all, is the keyhole to view the shape intrinsic value takes within their individual being. What I'm particularly interested in is why people make the choices they make and why people do the things that they do given the infinite amount of options available. The study of simpler life forms has revealed much in this regard. It is a study that is certainly quantifiable.
But the question of the existence of intrinsic value: the ? of the existence of a foundation to which our choices must either conform or be shaped by is essential to determine why disturbing behavior (ie Murder, assualt, rape, robbery etc) has and continues to be perpetuated throughout history in spite of the countless moral systems and moralities that speak against it. It must be that morality itself does not control. However, there is some kind of control because we do not act randomly. It seems appropriate to name this control intrinsic value even if one chooses to see it as a fragmented amalgamation of personal history. Even were it to be viewed as an infinitely sided spinning prism reflecting past emotive experiences, the readily apparent attempts at ordering a chaotic world hints at the possibility of systematic analysis.
the issue of completeness:
It probably isn't necessary to assume that completeness can be achieved. I'd venture to guess that entire libraries have been written about this state and how the saintly, ascetic and devout have devoted their lives to achieving it. But for common existence and for my curiosity, the fact that we address internal needs by reaching out externally until those internal needs attenuate is observable and easily subject to analysis. These observable patterns allow us insight into the force(s) that drive them. Hopefully, the architecture of intrinsic value (as described above) can be revealed by starting to look here.
Morality's place:
As mentioned earlier, it would seem that morality is misplaced as a controller while evidently too weak a force to accomplish this task. As such, one of my lesser curiosities is the exploration of how morality is set as a bolster and crutch for raw expressions of intrinsic value that are irreconcilable.
Intrinsic good and God:
both symbols that require faith
What I would suggest is that any atheist willing to follow their atheism to its logical conclusion also consider the possibility that they may have to part with ethics. And it may be possible to have a society without ethics. But that is, as far as I know, a question that no one has put much effort into answering.
I've tried, in so far as ethics and systems of morality do not control, but symbolize the individual in his quest for the self. Here's a recent quote (3/2006) from Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities: "Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence."
I seriously doubt that you see ethics as a mere psychological game, and I doubt that you would excuse unethical behavior in another person on the grounds that they perceive rape and murder to be a personal good regardless of your personal perception.
psychological yes, a game no. perceiving murder and rape as the end product of a psychological process allows you to address the process and most importantly identify it before the action occurs. perceiving murder and rape as amoral, unethical, and antisocial only allows you to punish the action after it occurs. both strategies are essential for justice, but we're discussing a common thread that runs through human behavior rather than dispensing justice.
Can I deny it? Not definitively. But I suspect that there might be an ethics that transcends our limited subjectivity. I'm just rational enough to know that such a claim is inconsistent with a naturalistic world-view.
definitely, but because ethical systems have been spectacular in their failings, calling it an ethical system may be due to a limited subjectivity as well. how about behavioral self-controls?
This thread's question of "does intrinsic value exist" seems to preface the book. I am interested in how the book's author might frame a response, but shouldn't think that we need be restrained by it in this particular thread. Thank you again for taking the time to address my contentions.
Intrinsic good vs Intrinsic value:
My assertion is of the existence of intrinsic value not of intrinsic good. I began to use the term "good" as a hypothetical. However I do, as you suspect, believe that without the elasticity of variation, human existence, and all living beings cannot comform to an absolute good.
I am advocating that there exists intrinsic value. Defining it again, I'll state that it's the element of direction or drive or core belief that allows living beings to order a random and chaotic world. I'd love to discuss Socrates, Plato and Freud in another thread.
I'd answer your questions regarding the simpler forms of life, the diseased & the compulsive with an affirmative. They too have intrinsic value and are directing themselves using an evolving framework reflexive of their encounter with the world. Is this intrinsic value simply by the virtue of doing anything at all? YES! All living beings by the virtue of their existence are graced with choice. The choices they make, the doing of anything at all, is the keyhole to view the shape intrinsic value takes within their individual being. What I'm particularly interested in is why people make the choices they make and why people do the things that they do given the infinite amount of options available. The study of simpler life forms has revealed much in this regard. It is a study that is certainly quantifiable.
But the question of the existence of intrinsic value: the ? of the existence of a foundation to which our choices must either conform or be shaped by is essential to determine why disturbing behavior (ie Murder, assualt, rape, robbery etc) has and continues to be perpetuated throughout history in spite of the countless moral systems and moralities that speak against it. It must be that morality itself does not control. However, there is some kind of control because we do not act randomly. It seems appropriate to name this control intrinsic value even if one chooses to see it as a fragmented amalgamation of personal history. Even were it to be viewed as an infinitely sided spinning prism reflecting past emotive experiences, the readily apparent attempts at ordering a chaotic world hints at the possibility of systematic analysis.
the issue of completeness:
It probably isn't necessary to assume that completeness can be achieved. I'd venture to guess that entire libraries have been written about this state and how the saintly, ascetic and devout have devoted their lives to achieving it. But for common existence and for my curiosity, the fact that we address internal needs by reaching out externally until those internal needs attenuate is observable and easily subject to analysis. These observable patterns allow us insight into the force(s) that drive them. Hopefully, the architecture of intrinsic value (as described above) can be revealed by starting to look here.
Morality's place:
As mentioned earlier, it would seem that morality is misplaced as a controller while evidently too weak a force to accomplish this task. As such, one of my lesser curiosities is the exploration of how morality is set as a bolster and crutch for raw expressions of intrinsic value that are irreconcilable.
Intrinsic good and God:
both symbols that require faith
What I would suggest is that any atheist willing to follow their atheism to its logical conclusion also consider the possibility that they may have to part with ethics. And it may be possible to have a society without ethics. But that is, as far as I know, a question that no one has put much effort into answering.
I've tried, in so far as ethics and systems of morality do not control, but symbolize the individual in his quest for the self. Here's a recent quote (3/2006) from Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities: "Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence."
I seriously doubt that you see ethics as a mere psychological game, and I doubt that you would excuse unethical behavior in another person on the grounds that they perceive rape and murder to be a personal good regardless of your personal perception.
psychological yes, a game no. perceiving murder and rape as the end product of a psychological process allows you to address the process and most importantly identify it before the action occurs. perceiving murder and rape as amoral, unethical, and antisocial only allows you to punish the action after it occurs. both strategies are essential for justice, but we're discussing a common thread that runs through human behavior rather than dispensing justice.
Can I deny it? Not definitively. But I suspect that there might be an ethics that transcends our limited subjectivity. I'm just rational enough to know that such a claim is inconsistent with a naturalistic world-view.
definitely, but because ethical systems have been spectacular in their failings, calling it an ethical system may be due to a limited subjectivity as well. how about behavioral self-controls?
