Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote:I am not interested in having you as some bitter personal foe.
Point your aggressive posturing at somebody else.

Oh, oh! Me sir! Pick me, sir! I'm in the market for a bitter personal foe! But I will accept sour if bitter is not available.

Are you offering a committed relationship or will just cast me aside when Bill returns and flutters his non sequiturs at you?

FlashDangerpants wrote:Are you offering a committed relationship or will just cast me aside when Bill returns and flutters his non sequiturs at you?

I'm afraid I could only offer a night or two at best to either. I'm so noncommittal.

Dalek Prime wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Are you offering a committed relationship or will just cast me aside when Bill returns and flutters his non sequiturs at you?

I'm afraid I could only offer a night or two at best to either. I'm so noncommittal.

Fickle much? I think I'l go stick beans up my nose.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Are you offering a committed relationship or will just cast me aside when Bill returns and flutters his non sequiturs at you?

I'm afraid I could only offer a night or two at best to either. I'm so noncommittal.

Fickle much? I think I'l go stick beans up my nose.

Funny you mention that. I was just recalling a skit on some comedy show, where this compulsive nose picker ends up in rehab to stop doing this. Only thing is, he goes to the extreme opposite, and with snot all over his face, is told he's allowed to blow it.

tbieter wrote:"Bailey, an aspiring physical therapist, told the Devils Lake Journal, “I feel like I was just doing the right thing." (Emphasis added}
http://www.runnersworld.com/general-int ... inish-line

I saw this interview with Bailey on my evening newscast. She made the statement spontaneously, probably as spontaneous as her decision to pick up and carry the other runner to the finish line.

I was struck by Bailey's statement, her reason for acting as she did, her doing "the right thing."

Is it reasonable to assert that her action is evidence of the existence of an objective moral order, or of the existence an objective order of right actions ?


In every encounter between a human being and another being, is there a right action to be taken by the human being?

Similar actions occur occasionally and are reported in the news. I've always been struck by the fact that the actor usually (a) acts spontaneously, and, (b) when questioned, refers to doing "the right thing." For example, I recall a report about a homeless guy. He found a briefcase containing a lot of cash in a public place. He promptly went to the nearby police precinct and turned it in. When questioned, he simply said it was the "right thing to do."

What do you think?

What is an alternative explanation for this pattern of human actions?

spon·ta·ne·ous adjective \spän-ˈtā-nē-əs\
: done or said in a natural and often sudden way and without a lot of thought or planning
: doing things that have not been planned but that seem enjoyable and worth doing at a particular time
_____________________________________________________________

The following letter to the editor appeared in today's (April 24, 2017) Saint Paul Pioneer Press:
I have underlined the relevant sentence

BLAME THE PASSENGERS

By now, everyone has heard about the incident on the airline that used the slogan “Fly the friendly skies.” I was waiting for others to state the obvious. A man was being dragged down the aisle bloody and beaten. What did the passengers do? They snapped pictures on their phones; some spoke up or cried out to stop — but did anyone give their seat for the doctor? No. People blame the airlines; I blame the passengers. You were tested on doing the right thing. You failed. What would you do if you were on that flight? I know what I would do, because I have in the past.

Judy Nelson, Woodbury

The question persists: What is the source of the author's judgment, that giving up one's seat instead of the doctor being required to give up his seat, is the right action under the circumstances?

Is it reasonable to assert that her action is evidence of the existence of an objective moral order, or of the existence an objective order of right actions?

- Of course.
- The objective moral order is life.
- In other words, all actions are ultimately judged by their effects upon life.
- The particular actions themselves are determined by conditions.
- In the airline incident, the primary condition is personality of the players.

The principle, which manifested according to the conditions, is inertia.
- Specifically, irresistible force meeting immovable object, with humans caught in between.

As often happens, both force and object were the same in this situation.
- Both were stubborn jackasses.

The witness that would have given up her seat, perceived the objective inevitability first non-conceptually, then perhaps conceptually.
The non-conceptual was the perception of objects caught between incalculably enormous forces.
- Anyone who has witnessed rage, can relate.

- If sandstone, the objects between the energetic forces would have crumbled and pulverized.
- If gold, they would have shape-shifted with no loss of structural integrity.
- However, the objects were folks.

Like sandstone, the outer layers crumbled first. Words, reasoning, facial expressions, threats, anger, resistance, the three-foot buffer of space and soon, the flesh itself gave way to release the blood of life.
- With life as the measure, proportionality and appropriateness to situation was the form that yielded to the inertia of the forces made powerful by self-cherishing, one of the most powerful attachments strong as gravity, thus the weightless feeling in its absence.

Here’s the most important thing, though.

- In every situation, every person knows the right action, even if that is stillness.
- Because this is the default of being a human being, then no correlation exists between knowing the right action, and doing the right action.
- Not knowing the right action to do, even if that action be the gathering of more information, or patiently waiting for things to just simmer on down a bit and hold your horses, is caused by lack of clarity.
- However, because one knows the right action and then does the wrong action, afterwards one will kick oneself, as the saying goes. Or perhaps hit the forehead with the heel of the hand. This is done as a result of simply doing the wrong doing, because the wrong was done while the right thing to do, was known prior to the wrong doing. (Everyone knows the feeling).

- What is unclear in the muddled becomes the basis for defining the appropriateness of any particular action within a situation.
- Where lack of clarity is not, there is no doubt between this step and the next.

There is one ridiculously simple evidence of non-conceptual moral order.
- That is, left to their own devices, strangers do not touch.
- The rest of what happens in society is an extrapolation of this natural ethic.

This can be and has been codified into a simple concept to filter out confusion regarding right action, such as that shown by the corrupted relations in this clip of an airline incident.

- The concept is: the guest is God.

In this sardine-can pressure cooker …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahxlt7bLGqI
… need causes people to move.

- What are the possible needs?

Only two:
- The need to punish.
- The need to help (most often help oneself).

Why did the big guy in the video move?
He moved to punish.
- He did not say, “May I help?”

- He needed to punish.
- So did the male stewardess.
- They punished with threats and finger pointing.

Those who did not move,
did not really feel either the need to punish,
or the need to help
although given the ways of folks,
fence-sitting witnesses would likely protest this assessment too much.

Action reveals true feelings,
Action rather than feelings defines need and intent
Even when the heat is on.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:09 pm So "the right thing" is always selfishly motivated. Of course! Even Mother Teresa did what she did because she believed it would assure her entry into heaven.

I have learned that it is better to make a distinction between the two concepts "selfish" and "self-interest. Yes, I agree we do everything out of self-interest, but this does not mean necessarily that we are "selfish." For example, we go to sleep because we are tired. Selfishness arises when other people are involved, and when we are inconsiderate of them.

Heroism, to the point of martyrdom, is something else again. It could be complex, having elements of psychopathology, or at least of extreme neurosis. Or it could be quite admirable, such as when one pushes a toddler out of the way of a moving bus and risks getting run over by the bus. That appears to me to be 'a selfless act,' but you say, spheres, that there is no such thing.

I further hold that selfish individuals are actually not acting in their self-interest, but instead are violating it.

To treat others as you would have them treat you is a good guideline for an ethical life - provided no sado-masochism is involved. See the Kindle book HOW TO LIVE SUCCESSFULLY by M.C. Katz




"