Science and Enlightenment: East and West

#46 Posted by tahmed32

I agree! Confusion only comes with misdiagnosis of where truly your self interest lies.

tahmed32#46:

You are correct. Judiciary is very much a part of the state and, in many countries including India and perhaps also Pakistan, even the human rights organizations are funded by the State. However, their functions are to ensure that the executive does not overstep its functions.

TehsinA#45:

No, I was not thinking of the karma principle while quoting that axiom which, I believe, is attributed to some German philosopher (Kant?). The karma principle, as I understand it, relates one's action to just consequences, if not in this life, than in a future life.

As for swallowing germs, I should refer to the Jains who are the extreme practitioners of non-violence; some of them go to the extreme of wearing a strip of cloth over their mouth so as not to swallow any germs from the air. However, with our modern scientific knowledge, we know that there may be microbes even in water we drink.

There are many theories regarding the origin of the caste system. If the theory regarding the aryans coming from outside India and overpowering the original dark-skinned inhabitants is correct (and it is being vigorously challenged these days), then the most plausible explanation is that this is the original and the most enduring practice of racial segregation to maintain racial purity.

#48 "It is the job of human rights organizations and the judiciary to ensure that the state does not cross acceptable limits in carrying out that function. "

only if you plan to give human rights organizations the same firepower as the executive. and the judiciary is as much the state as the executive - the state is not just the executive, as you imply.

bulleya:

"what about the guy who wants to live and let live (other than incest and animal sex), but is on the forefront in supporting occupations and state terrorism and killings, wherever he feels it suits his personal beliefs (this one applies to you, also)......."

No, I do not support state terrorism and killings. However, in carrying out its mandate to ensure peace and stability and unity of the state, the state is required to use violence, including killings. It is the job of human rights organizations and the judiciary to ensure that the state does not cross acceptable limits in carrying out that function.

anil #: " For example, walking naked in Papua New Papua New Guinea but not acceptable on the streets in Mecca. Problem comes when people insist on switching rules."

...yes, like i said, morality is based on majority opinion....which is why, it is impossible to define an ethical basis for it.....

...everyone tries to find their own comfort spot, and then attempts to devise some ethical justification for this comfort spot.....however, sooner or later, someone challenges that ethical basis......

the reason is that there is no definition of what is ethical and what is not ethical.....people try using different standards, yet then go back on them.....

......if we use the athiestic standard of, "as long as you don't harm anyone else, you should be allowed to do whatever you want," then walking naked and having sex with your dog is perfectly ethical......not to mentione having sex with your grandmother (provided it is consensual, of course)......

........what other concept can be used......let's try secularism......there is no purely secular society in the world......in fact, secularism, as a philosophy, has such a weak foundation, that i doubt it will last too long.....it assumes a God, who knows what is going on in personal events, but got it all wrong in public affairs......not a very knowing God, if you ask me......

......the gay marriage debate will unravel secularism.....because for all its hoopla, the core foundations of secular societies are based on the very religious concept of marraige.....marraige should have no legal existence in a secular society.....anyone who is biologically compatible (be it with any human or animal) should be allowed to cohabitat in a secular society.....yet marraige is legislated heavily as something between a man and an unrelated woman......this is, of course, solely, a religious concept.....

........not only that, in a purely secular society, it is the reponsibility of a secular state to teach everything without prejudice.....hence all public schools should teach kids the above....i.e. if you want to cohabitat with your grandma, consensually, you can......or you can with your girlfriend.......each should be taught equally, or not taught at all......you should be able to bring your gay boyfriend as a date to the prom also.......since you are a taxpayer.....and should have equal rights.....

yet the biggest secular supporters of ahmedi rights draw a line when it comes to gay rights in pakistan......even thought there are probably more gays in pakistan, than ahmedis.....and the biggest secular supporters of gay marraige in canada, draw a line when it comes to polygamy.....and the biggest secular supporters of polygamy in utah, draw a line when it comes to grandma......so on and so forth.......

everyone becomes religious at a certain boundary......

so, what else can we make the basis of ethics?......ethics is nothing but the will of the majority........in some cases, this will is based on religion (as prescribed by an all powerful God), in others it is based on a religion (as prescribed by an all powerful majority).......

we could, of course, reduce everything to its biological fundamentals.....i.e. if my doctor says, it is not going to kill me (or kill someone else) then it is ok........in which case, we can behave like animals, i.e no clothes, no boundaries in mating, etc. etc.......

so what exactly is the basis of ethics, other than majority opinion, forced upon everyone?

#45 the rights of germs are of concern to humans only to the extent those rights benefit humans. "morality" is nothing but intelligent self-interest.

#24 Posted by dost_mittar

"Don't do to others what you don't want to do to you"

That is the Karma principle which to a large extent I agree with, but let me be the devil’s advocate here. Lets say you are a doctor and your job is to make people healthy. But in the process you are annihilating a lot of germs; now you are responsible for this whole sale killing. What should your Karma be for destroying this creation? It has to have its consequences which would probably balance out with the good that you did for all your patients.

The greater point I am trying to make here is that a 360 degree vision only ends up justifying you in your current position, which in fact is what the caste system did in India. What do you say?

Re: # 43

Romair:

"........walking around naked in the streets doesn't seem medically unhealthy......but it is illegal.....on the other hand, smoking is unhealthy, but it is legal......."

This is a different standard, higher or lower is a perspective, than what Dost is saying. Would you not agree? For example, walking naked in Papua New Papua New Guinea but not acceptable on the streets in Mecca. Problem comes when people insist on switching rules.

dost-mittar #: "I would not want any religion to decide what is good or bad for me; I'll let the health experts tell me whether eating beef or drinking alcohol is good or bad for me and let my own ethics decide whether or not I should kill an animal for my food."

....everyone lets health experts tell them things.....however, nearly everyone draws a line at some point.......

to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing medically wrong with homosexuality, incest, polygamy, even what is considered under-age sex....

.....walking around naked in the streets doesn't seem medically unhealthy......but it is illegal.....on the other hand, smoking is unhealthy, but it is legal.......

what is the ethical basis of your views......other than your own opinions......?why should a society conform to your opinions, and not to the opinion of the guy who is healthier than you and wants to walk naked in downtown toronto, with his four wives.......

dost-mittar#: "This is not possible in a morality based on an unchanging dogma."

...actually, morality will always be based on the majority opinion, which is why it is impossible to define an ethical basis for it (or a basis for ethics, to start off with)....

.....what you have seen changing is a change of majority opinion........majority opinion is, thus, a religion of its own.....

the question that needs to be answered is what is the basis of human ethics....what is human ethics, to begin with.....how does one decide what is good and what is bad, in a society.....

societies have tried all kinds of things, but none seems to stabilize.....from religion to secularism......all end up with philosophical loopholes that cannot be addressed......

you are happy with secularism, but the gay marriage couple down the street may not be.......once they become happy, then the polygomist in the next neighborhood may not be......if he becomes happy, then the incestual couple, in the adjoining city, where husband and incestual wife and model citizens, will not be.......and what about the philanthrapist who won the nobel prize, and never bothered a soul, but likes to have sex with his dog......

people pushing religion, find a comfort spot with their views, much like you do with yours.....they think their views are as ethical as you think yours to be....

and we haven't even discussed the ethics of foreign policy....what about the guy who wants to live and let live (other than incest and animal sex), but is on the forefront in supporting occupations and state terrorism and killings, wherever he feels it suits his personal beliefs (this one applies to you, also).......

first you need to define a basis of ethics; only after which one can build a universally acceptable structure on top of it.......

contd...
in overall achievement, the southern states(where effect of Islam is minimal) are far ahead of any region in this part of asia...that says all...
I don't see any other city in moslem countries or other cities in this part of Asia, producing that much intellectual output like Bangalore, Pune and Chennai....They are class apart....

contd...
in overall achievement, the southern states(where effect of Islam is minimal) are far ahead of any region in this part of asia...that says all...
I don't see any other city in moslem countries or other cities in this part of Asia, producing that much intellectual output like Bangalore, Pune and Chennai....They are class apart....

contd...
in overall achievement, the southern states(where effect of Islam is minimal) are far ahead of any region in this part of asia...that says all...
I don't see any other city in moslem countries or other cities in this part of Asia, producing that much intellectual output like Bangalore, Pune and Chennai....They are class apart....

Re: # 35
sha2...
Yeh, Buddhism had made way for islam/barbarism to creep into India...
In modern time too, the "liberal democracy" created path for Islam/Terrorism to spread in Britian and other civilised countries, which is harming those countries....fortunately, Islam in Britain is mostly confined within Pakistani and other arab migrants...That is minor fraction of British population, which can cause bearable burden to rest of British propulation...they may be laggards in education etc...(in civilised areas) and sometimes engaged in islmic activities (bombing etc. etc...) but the society, as a whole maintained the Britishness, and so UK still houses best of the Universities and not turned into Pakistan and other arab countries...If the social discipline was properly maintained, Indians would have been able to repulse urdoo/arabic invaders (those who can stop Alexander, are definitely able people)... and I am sure universites in Nalanda, Kashi, Ujjain would have flourished rather than got destroyed....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts