Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:31 am**

For one, I think many people do wrong knowing full-well that it is wrong. But I don't agree with your proposition that everyone knows right from wrong. Some people have the wrong morality.

Posted: **Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:43 am**

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:39 am
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:27 am
I mean potential wrongdoing by others which is any wrongdoing in a legal sense only
We may share the same idea about wrongdoing, but to make it clear for everyone, what do you mean by wrongdoing?

Who gets to establish that?

WHO gets to establish what IS right and what IS wrong IS EVERY thing. A unified agreement is the only true thing that can provide what IS right and wrong. Also, NEED plays a big part in discovering what IS right and wrong. To discover what IS right and wrong think about what is NEEDED in Life and what EVERY thing could agree with. 'Could', being NOT necessarily would be agreed with. We have to make allowances for those people who would disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:39 am Is there a simple rule or is it a complicated legal quagmire?

There is a simple rule, but human beings have distorted and complicated this, from their confusion, and by continually making multiple different rules.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:39 amIs it set in stone (like the Biblical Ten Commandments) for all time?

Yes this simple rule can be set for the rest of all time.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:39 amWhy does the law concerning crime and punishment (catchy title) change over time?

PhilX

Because human beings are confused animals.

Posted: **Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:55 am**

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:31 am For one, I think many people do wrong knowing full-well that it is wrong. But I don't agree with your proposition that everyone knows right from wrong.

For you to say that MANY people to do wrong knowing full-well that it is wrong, means that they MUST KNOW right from wrong. So, why do you say MANY people know right from wrong but NOT everyone?

What number would you put on this?

You say that not everyone knows right from wrong, who are the ones that do know the difference and who are the ones that do not know the difference? And, WHY do some know while others do not?

By the way I separate doing what is known full-well as being wrong as bad behavior, whereas ALL adults that do wrong, which they ALL do, but are not necessarily knowing they are doing wrong as being wrong behavior.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:31 am Some people have the wrong morality.

How many people would you suggest have the "wrong morality", AND, what do you mean by 'wrong morality'?

Posted: **Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:05 am**

ken wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:55 am For you to say that MANY people to do wrong knowing full-well that it is wrong, means that they MUST KNOW right from wrong. So, why do you say MANY people know right from wrong but NOT everyone?

What number would you put on this?

You say that not everyone knows right from wrong, who are the ones that do know the difference and who are the ones that do not know the difference? And, WHY do some know while others do not?

By the way I separate doing what is known full-well as being wrong as bad behavior, whereas ALL adults that do wrong, which they ALL do, but are not necessarily knowing they are doing wrong as being wrong behavior.

I think you're too confident to assume they must know. I don't think that's necessarily true. Someone can know that torture is wrong, but does not think that saving someone from gator infested water is right. I'm sure there's a whole plethora of examples to give you, but just what makes you think they must know right if they know wrong?

Can you rephrase that last paragraph, it's unclear to me what you mean.

How many people would you suggest have the "wrong morality", AND, what do you mean by 'wrong morality'?

Someone who does not have my utilitarian-based morality, which I believe to be true based on various philosophical arguments. Though I think that's an entirely separate and lengthy discussion. But I'm sure there are belief systems we can both agree are terrible, the communists, Nazi, Wahhabi, etc.

Posted: **Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:30 am**

Rules exist within society not prior to it.
Apart from the obvious fact that if we have Empathy we may thereby be altruists and promote altruist society
If we have pragmatic intelligence we may choose the same
That is to say altruism as logically contrasted with the alternative forms of society
There is no purpose in discussing altruistic ethical rules with people who belong to another form of society

Posted: **Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:12 pm**

Rules are strictly boundaries which give definition to the nature of being. It is through the observation of definition we know. The observation of rules is simultaneously the same as "knowing" for "knowing" is the observation of "limits" and "possibilities" (further limits).

Posted: **Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:53 am**

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:05 am
ken wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:55 am For you to say that MANY people to do wrong knowing full-well that it is wrong, means that they MUST KNOW right from wrong. So, why do you say MANY people know right from wrong but NOT everyone?

What number would you put on this?

You say that not everyone knows right from wrong, who are the ones that do know the difference and who are the ones that do not know the difference? And, WHY do some know while others do not?

By the way I separate doing what is known full-well as being wrong as bad behavior, whereas ALL adults that do wrong, which they ALL do, but are not necessarily knowing they are doing wrong as being wrong behavior.
I think you're too confident to assume they must know.

Who, exactly, do I supposedly assume 'they' must know?

And, what 'must they know' that you are saying I am confident in assuming?

If you are referring to 'adults', then I said that they ALL do wrong. I did NOT say any thing at all about what they must know.

What were you assuming that led you to that sort of conclusion?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:05 am I don't think that's necessarily true. Someone can know that torture is wrong, but does not think that saving someone from gator infested water is right.

What has this got to do with any thing I have been saying?

(Question to self, what is it with the way i express that leads people to jump to some truly weird and amazing conclusions?
Answer, i know i do not express clearly, and I could do a lot better, but surely there is some thing else causing these so far off track from what i am saying replies to be given. I know what i write gets misinterpreted and mistaken but surely even my writings are not that bad to get so mistakenly wrong as often as they do?)

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:05 amI'm sure there's a whole plethora of examples to give you, but just what makes you think they must know right if they know wrong?

Well, obviously, if a person knows wrong, then they also must know right. The two go hand-in-hand, as they say. But obviously to know right from wrong the right and the wrong would have to be in relation to the same thing. The example you gave, to Me anyway, appears to be to ridiculous to be taken seriously.

Also, WHY are we going down this track? Did I, unconsciously, say some where that they MUST KNOW right?

The only time I recall alluding to knowing right from wrong was in My clarifying questions about this very issue, to you. YOU are the one who was saying MANY people do wrong, knowing full-well that they are doing wrong. So, it is YOU who is, indirectly, saying THEY MUST KNOW right from wrong. 'Knowing full-well' means they MUST KNOW.

I actually stipulated, in the quote, that although ALL adult human beings do wrong THEY MAY NOT BE ACTUALLY AWARE THAT THEY ARE DOING WRONG, which is totally different from what you think I am saying.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:05 amCan you rephrase that last paragraph, it's unclear to me what you mean.

Okay sure, that is fair enough. I do quite often not explain things clearly enough.

Say you know that abusing children is wrong and you know that what you are doing is actually abusing children, if you continue to do that, then I call that behavior bad behavior, whereas, when you are abusing children but are not actually aware that you are abusing children, then I call that behavior wrong behavior.

ALL adults do wrong behavior, but they are not necessarily knowing that they are doing wrong. For example ALL adults are abusing children but only a very minute few know, and/or acknowledge the fact, that they are abusing children.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:05 am
How many people would you suggest have the "wrong morality", AND, what do you mean by 'wrong morality'?
Someone who does not have my utilitarian-based morality, which I believe to be true based on various philosophical arguments.

So let Me see if I have this right. If a person does not have the exact same based morality as you do and believe to be true, (whatever that means?), then to you, that person has the "wrong" morality, is this correct?

If so, then does the saying 'that is a very narrow, selfish and conceited view you have' ring any alarm bells within you?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:05 amThough I think that's an entirely separate and lengthy discussion.

And one discussion I am more than willing to have with you, if you would like to?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:05 amBut I'm sure there are belief systems we can both agree are terrible, the communists, Nazi, Wahhabi, etc.

To Me, besides one, ALL belief "systems" are terrible, and all of those are terribly WRONG to have, especially the belief system that you have.

Posted: **Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:32 pm**

Because not all of us are omniscient, or feel 'evil' from 'good' while willing, so we rely upon rules. I can tell when I have an ill intent, but when I don't, such as when I am angry, I may act within of the range of what I call evil even unintentionally. Emotions are what 'motion' us towards certain behaviors and feelings. Feelings themselves, such as dysphoric ones, are ultimately of the nature of suffering for the experient as well as the object of the emotion, and regardless, they are necessary; for instance, Desiring Good and Hating Evil. But even hating evil and desiring good has problems; we may not feel that an action is good or evil, regardless of its source of will and outcome of consequence predicted, and therefore may put stock in what is good and evil as our own predilections instead of what is truly good or evil; in other words, we may feel desire for good and hatred of evil, but we don't know exactly what is good or evil in feeling but rather through belief what is good and evil and then place our actions and feeligns based upon those thoughts, and then hate what they believe is evil and love what they believe is good. LIke the adage "Heart in a headlock."

I have felt good and evil before I even committed an act, as though I were eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and as Wise as the Serpent, but nonetheless it was a rare experience and I cannot always tell good from evil like I did when I experienced such. In other words, I literally felt goodness or evil-ness of an action is if I ever acted or willed it in my own heart. Not everyone has the ability to tell good from evil on their own knowing it before the actions or willings.

Usually people follow social constructs and opinions and paradigms, so they follow rules.

One may interpret my experience as dealing with "the Devil" but in reality, Wisdom is what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the serpent gave so that we may interact and live in this Universe. Hence the Tree of Life was guarded by a flaming sword. When I said 'wise' as the Serpent, I meant that it is 'Sophia' or 'Wisdom' personified. In order to exist, we had to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is curse that kicked them out of the Garden of Eden and forced them to Labor in agriculture and childbearing.

Anyways, I think rules are a great way to teach Wisdom, but Wisdom, for me, is knowing for each individual what is best for them to ascend above themselves and reach a way of be-ing that is best for them. The Buddha did the same, with his wisdom he saw what was the best teaching for each one of his disciples and taught them accordingly. However, he also had a teaching for all called the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, with other teachings as well. As an instance of him tailoring his teachings: he was silent when asked if there is no self. However,in many of his teachings he did say there is no self. So, either it's a contradiction or a tailoring, and I would say it's the latter.

Posted: **Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:10 pm**

Viveka wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:32 pm In order to exist, we had to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is curse that kicked them out of the Garden of Eden and forced them to Labor in agriculture and childbearing.

I am not usually one of those people who criticize grammar, actually this is my first time ever, but the introduction of paragraphs provides convenience in reading. I say this because I was guilty of this quite often before someone else gave me this advice. I

That being said the above quote I singled because in my opinion it summarized the "spirit of the argument". However, you may disagree and that is fine.

Using the "Tree of Knowledge" metaphor/story, mankind already existed prior to eating it in a harmonious state of "being".

Considering wisdom, at its core, mediates the nature of observing boundary lines through the observation of "rules" and "natures" (or one may say "rules as natures") the serpent metaphor strictly reflects the "fracturing" of that primordial wisdom. This being said considering all balance and knowledge was maintained through one rule: "do not eat of the tree of good and evil".

In this respect "knowledge" had a fuller of wholeness and universality do to its summation through one rule or one point to observe.

To observe deeper into this story/metaphor, the nature of eating stems from "appetite". In many respects the one universal rule, which mediated all reality, broke down into simpler modern terms: "do not commit to greed" or "do not give fire to one's appetites".

Posted: **Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:31 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:10 pm
Viveka wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:32 pm In order to exist, we had to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is curse that kicked them out of the Garden of Eden and forced them to Labor in agriculture and childbearing.
I am not usually one of those people who criticize grammar, actually this is my first time ever, but the introduction of paragraphs provides convenience in reading. I say this because I was guilty of this quite often before someone else gave me this advice. I

That being said the above quote I singled because in my opinion it summarized the "spirit of the argument". However, you may disagree and that is fine.

Using the "Tree of Knowledge" metaphor/story, mankind already existed prior to eating it in a harmonious state of "being".

Yes, all was 'Good.' How? I think it's possible to have a universe wherein all is good no matter what because beings who live outside of Good and Evil already have an inner light of Goodness as an ultimate truth, regardless of a light pushing back darkness, which thereof is required for Good and Evil to exist.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:10 pm
Considering wisdom, at its core, mediates the nature of observing boundary lines through the observation of "rules" and "natures" (or one may say "rules as natures") the serpent metaphor strictly reflects the "fracturing" of that primordial wisdom. This being said considering all balance and knowledge was maintained through one rule: "do not eat of the tree of good and evil".

The Gospel of Thomas verse 24: He said to them, "Anyone here with two ears had better listen! There is light within a person of light, and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark."

I would agree, but I would rather say that the Serpent gave darkness and light, while they already existed in a state of inner light. The Serpent did 'fracture' in a sense, but only to make 'Good and Evil.' The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the instruction to eat from it are one and the same, but the Serpent did not lie when he spoke of them becoming 'Gods,' while he did lie about them not dying. I guess the serpent did not foresee the guarding of the Tree of Life, for 'it would also make them immortal.' Perhaps this is because the serpent was a trans-dimensional being that existed on the plane of existence, while speaking to them from that plane.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:10 pm In this respect "knowledge" had a fuller of wholeness and universality do to its summation through one rule or one point to observe.

To observe deeper into this story/metaphor, the nature of eating stems from "appetite". In many respects the one universal rule, which mediated all reality, broke down into simpler modern terms: "do not commit to greed" or "do not give fire to one's appetites".

I would say they were told a lie, then captivated by its beauty at first, then enjoyed the taste, and then felt the punishment. So yes, appetites were originally the downfall, much iike the Buddha calls the Mulakleshas: desire, aversion, and ignorance. All of these factored into falling into existence.

The Gospel of Thomas 43. His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?"

"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you.

Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:25 pm**

Viveka wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:31 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:10 pm
Viveka wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:32 pm In order to exist, we had to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is curse that kicked them out of the Garden of Eden and forced them to Labor in agriculture and childbearing.
I am not usually one of those people who criticize grammar, actually this is my first time ever, but the introduction of paragraphs provides convenience in reading. I say this because I was guilty of this quite often before someone else gave me this advice. I

That being said the above quote I singled because in my opinion it summarized the "spirit of the argument". However, you may disagree and that is fine.

Using the "Tree of Knowledge" metaphor/story, mankind already existed prior to eating it in a harmonious state of "being".
Yes, all was 'Good.' How?

A higher degree of unity then what we currently observe. The nature(s) of being(s) were less divided.

I think it's possible to have a universe wherein all is good no matter what because beings who live outside of Good and Evil already have an inner light of Goodness as an ultimate truth, regardless of a light pushing back darkness, which thereof is required for Good and Evil to exist.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:10 pm
All "being" in itself is "good". The deficiency through "division" while causing "gradation" of "being" does not take away from the fact that the existence in itself has a "degree" of goodness for all "existence" is good.

Considering wisdom, at its core, mediates the nature of observing boundary lines through the observation of "rules" and "natures" (or one may say "rules as natures") the serpent metaphor strictly reflects the "fracturing" of that primordial wisdom. This being said considering all balance and knowledge was maintained through one rule: "do not eat of the tree of good and evil".

The Gospel of Thomas verse 24: He said to them, "Anyone here with two ears had better listen! There is light within a person of light, and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark."

The gospel of Thomas is subject to debate as to its origins. Here is one example link: http://www.answers.org/bible/gospelofthomas.html. I can provide more if you wish. At minimum it is an extension of gnostic philosophy, however it is probable that it stops there.

I would agree, but I would rather say that the Serpent gave darkness and light, while they already existed in a state of inner light.

The serpent provided "external" light you mean?
The Serpent did 'fracture' in a sense, but only to make 'Good and Evil.'

Evil is strictly a deficiency in "being" or "goodness" and is not a thing in itself. It is strictly "gradation". The nature of the serpent creating a duality, from a unity, is equivalent to the serpent creating a "polarity between forces" in order to cause a disturbance as "flux". All dualities are inherently unstable, with this dual element equivalent to "randomness" in one respect as a deficiency in unity. In a seperate respect it could be observe as the encasement of reality in matter as "time/space", which is perpetual flux or disunity.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the instruction to eat from it are one and the same, but the Serpent did not lie when he spoke of them becoming 'Gods,' while he did lie about them not dying.

Of course he didn't, where before man had a unity with the "logos" (God) his/her fracturing from it would equivocate them to "gods" in the respect they are now "mere images" due to that divine spark of reason.

I guess the serpent did not foresee the guarding of the Tree of Life, for 'it would also make them immortal.' Perhaps this is because the serpent was a trans-dimensional being that existed on the plane of existence, while speaking to them from that plane.

Due to its inherent nature the serpent would only be able to observe "division" and "limit" and in this respect could only foresee his own.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:10 pm In this respect "knowledge" had a fuller of wholeness and universality do to its summation through one rule or one point to observe.

To observe deeper into this story/metaphor, the nature of eating stems from "appetite". In many respects the one universal rule, which mediated all reality, broke down into simpler modern terms: "do not commit to greed" or "do not give fire to one's appetites".
I would say they were told a lie, then captivated by its beauty at first, then enjoyed the taste, and then felt the punishment. So yes, appetites were originally the downfall, much iike the Buddha calls the Mulakleshas: desire, aversion, and ignorance. All of these factored into falling into existence.

The Gospel of Thomas 43. His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?"

"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you.

Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."

Posted: **Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:14 pm**

Philosophy Explorer, you ask a valid question.

Why do we need rules?

Posted: **Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:02 pm**

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:14 pm Philosophy Explorer, you ask a valid question.

Why do we need rules?

To try to shorten a lengthy discussion, I'm asking anybody which rule is most necessary? Why? In the US there are thousands (if not millions) of laws on the books which I doubt anyone is fully acquainted with. Maybe someone would like to point out the rule that we can't live without.

PhilX

Posted: **Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:18 pm**

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:02 pm
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:14 pm Philosophy Explorer, you ask a valid question.

Why do we need rules?
To try to shorten a lengthy discussion, I'm asking anybody which rule is most necessary? Why? In the US there are thousands (if not millions) of laws on the books which I doubt anyone is fully acquainted with. Maybe someone would like to point out the rule that we can't live without.

PhilX

Even the FBI says america has too many rules.

Posted: **Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:21 pm**

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:18 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:02 pm
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:14 pm Philosophy Explorer, you ask a valid question.

Why do we need rules?
To try to shorten a lengthy discussion, I'm asking anybody which rule is most necessary? Why? In the US there are thousands (if not millions) of laws on the books which I doubt anyone is fully acquainted with. Maybe someone would like to point out the rule that we can't live without.

PhilX
Even the FBI says america has too many rules.

Makes their work harder.

PhilX

Philosophy Now Forum

If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?

Re: If we're supposed to know right from wrong, why do we need rules?