bob and fred

fred smith wrote - Love of life does not have to be based on feelings. In fact, it cannot be. What about those then that are suicidal or depressed. They do not have a love of life so they would not buy into this system nor would they be governed by it.

bob wrote - During those times it is the remembrance of health and happiness that serves as the guide. This is something with which I am well familiar. Generally speaking however I would not go looking to the menatlly ill for ethical judgement. They are incapable of it precisely because they have lost their love of life. Again, this is the key point.

Quote (bob): This feeling forms the basis of every aspect of the social system that functions properly and there is nothing logical about it.


Fred wrote - I disagree. Also, the idea that everyone can love everyone else is illogical. Therefore having love as the basis of any moral or ethical system would mean such a system is predicated upon an (un)reality.

bob wrote - It is not illogical that everyone could attempt to love everyone else if you hold the view, as I and many others do, that we are all essentially the same. The cruelty that people exhibit results from their ignorance of that fact and the fact that their well being is tied up with the well being of the people around them.

Quote (bob): Yes, there is tremendous variability over time and across cultures as to what constitutes ethical behaviour but this is mostly surface variability. On the big issues those with an ethical sense have always agreed more or less and they have always been able to recognize that sense in each other.


Fred wrote - I agree. That is why I disagree with moral relativism, deconstructionism as used by most leftists and nihilism.

bob wrote - I agree with you. You agree with me. We agree with each other.

Quote (bob): No absolute code of conduct will ever come close to reflecting the complexities of real life so all we are left with is faith in the idea that "something" at least is correct.


fred wrote - Here I disagree. Many have come very close to these things. I would argue that Judaism has a treasure trove of literature on philosophy, laws and ethics. Ditto for the Greeks and even the Chinese. How then, people are educated about these, how familiar they are with these tenets and how well the system is able to effectively execute these laws is then the key point.

bob wrote - I disagree with you. You disagree with me. We disagree with each other. It is faith in those systems that leads to finite systems of justice being applied to infinitely complex situations. It is a recipe for, ironically enough, injustice.

Quote (bob): Some things are truly wrong in an absolute sense and those of with "feelings" or an ethical sense will be able to percieve that.


fred wrote - Don't put too much faith in those who use feelings as a basis for their ethical and moral judgments. Witness the absolute silence at Saddam's crimes and the absolute frenetic fervor which with the US was attacked when it moved to remove him. That is precisely why "feelings" based systems are so inconsistent and if the results were not so tragic would be laughable. I for one am not laughing.

bob wrote - The situation was more complicated than that as I am sure you are aware.

Quote (bob): At other times right and wrong are more difficult to determine and standardized legal codes are just as likely to harm as to help.


Fred wrote - Correct. See my points above. This is why the Soviet system had all sorts of laws but so little justice. Justice is the key point behind any laws. Ethical and moral systems should be based first on justice. It is the only possible hope for fairness and to ensure that justice is in fact served.

Quote (bob): Justice in other words in any given situation is what happens when concerned, informed, and compassionate people sit down to discuss what justice is.


fred wrote - I agree. That is why I believe that concerned, INFORMED, compassionate judgments are EXACTLY what is needed.

Quote (bob): Compassion is a feeling and there is no justice without it.


fred wrote - Not true. Justice can be served without compassion. But I agree that people have to care and exhibit compassion but they should not allow that compassion to temper justice being served. If compassion is your primary aim your system will falter. There were many well-informed, compassionate people who firmly believed in the liberal welfare system despite the fact that the results being delivered were in fact a form of injustice. Ditto for bilingual education. Ergo, the ultimate factor must still be justice. It is best when compassion is included, but compassion must be the subordinate, the junior partner if you will.

bob wrote - That was an example of misguided compasion not an example of compassion's failing.

fred wrote - Final word. I am not denying the importance or even need for compassion. I am however stipulating that any system must have justice and that to have this you need a well-read, informed, articulate and consistent pool of enforcers. I do not see that on the left. I see lots of compassion with very little information or struggle to attain knowledge and in the process justice is subverted to the narcissistic twisting of the process where the compassionator needs the compassion to feel good about himself or herself more than to deliver any true benefits to the compassionatee.

bob - Knowledge without compassion will do more harm than compassion without knowledge. Still, your point is a very good one.
_______________