> In message <9115CBC9F45DD111AF4100805F8518F9BDBF2F@SFREXCHANGE>, Kelley,
> Ian <IKelley@littler.com> writes
> > What I'm saying is that the statement "Moral judgements are
> >always a substitute for understanding " reveals a moral judgement (made
> >by you) about moral judgements, namely that they are bad.
>
> No it doesn't! It's merely your assumption that anyone
> holding such a view would take a moral stance on it.
> What you're not considering is that it is possible to
> hold that view on entirely practical grounds, and take
> no moral stance whatsoever. Moral judgements are not
> morally wrong, they're just factually wrong where they
> assume objectivity, and practically wrong where they
> fail to minimise suffering.
Here is where I think you are wrong. My morals were not dictated by my
parents or a church, they come from time reflection and experience. My goals
are quite specific, and factual. I "cling" to the morals of "Life, Love and
Logic". I chose them as necessary to propagate a more conscious an and
empathic view of the world. In essence they are like the CoV virtues. I dont
think anyone would suggest that morals are objective, but they are not
intended to be objective. As for minimizing suffering, I like the idea, but
the concept that "minimizing suffering" is anything other than a moral with
no grounds, is more of the same.
>
>
> > Some clarification. "Morality", in what I assert is the common
> >view, is the notion that there is "good" and "bad" (as opposed to
> >ethics, dealing with behavior and notions of "right" and "wrong").
> >Morality is not necessarily based in a view of "what God wants"; it
> >doesn't have to derive from religion or from anything not verifyable,
> >what it requires is a shared underpinning of "values", which I assert
> >can exist in an observable place outside of memetic transfer.
>
> I agree that values, preferably shared, are necessary to
> guide our actions, and you can call that morality if you
> like, but I insist that when it's examined, it has to be
> shown to be based on practicality -- so that
> *fundamentally* there's no morality in it.
>
> [snip]
> > >>Buddhism advocates compassion, not because it's moral,
> > >>or proper, or because God/Buddha says so, but because
> > >>it minimises suffering, which is precisely what we all
> > >>want anyway. With sufficient practicality of that sort
> > >>there's no need for morality, whatsoever.
> >
> >
> > Indeed. I'm not sure what you consider "morality", but the
> >notion that it is GOOD to minimize suffering and BAD to increase it
> >falls within my definition.
>
> I don't know about your definition, but I hold the
> view that suffering is bad on entirely practical
> grounds -- we don't enjoy it, it is unnecessary,
> therefore we are better off without it. Where's the
> morality there?
> --
> Robin
Suffering is necessary for joy to exist in the same sense that evil is
necessary for free will to exist. Mankind has never lived without suffering,
no human has ever known life without suffering. To suggest that we are
better off without it is another trap. Suffering is not bad, or evil or
wrong, or without cause. It allerts to illness and oppression. There is no
line that can be drawn between "necessary suffering and unnecessary
suffering".
Sodom