> In message <9115CBC9F45DD111AF4100805F8518F9BDBF3A@SFREXCHANGE>, Kelley,
> Ian <IKelley@littler.com> writes
> > The position that suffering is BAD and practicality is GOOD is
> >based on moral underpinnings. It is not some absolute truth, and if you
> >justify it by saying that "we don't enjoy suffering, it is unnecessary",
> >you are in fact making the (moral) judgement that things that we enjoy
> >are GOOD and things that are unnecessary are BAD.
>
> That's not a moral judgement. In fact, it's not even a
> judgement. The fact of suffering comes first, and we
> don't have any choice about being for or against it --
> if we like it, or even are merely indifferent to it,
> it's not suffering. And I don't "judge" things that
> are unnecessary to be bad. It's a purely practical/
> logical point that unnecessary suffering is to be avoided.
Why is this logical? Some humans, at an emotional level, get excited and
enjoy the suffering of others. Ask any sadist.
>
>
> >>>The only reason to make a
> >>>moral judgement is to feel superior. And I'm no better than
> >>>those who do so. I don't cling to that particular delusion,
> >>>but I'm no better. Just better off.
> >
> >at others who are more comfortable with the terms, and the debate. You,
> >in your denial of the thing called "morality", are pursuing a more and
> >more specious argument as you try to prove that some things are
> >objectively "right" or "wrong" while denying that there's any such thing
> >as "good" and "bad". In for a penny, in for a pound.
>
> I'm not trying to prove that anything is objectively
> "right" or "wrong" -- where did I give that impression?
> We cling to things that we associate with pleasure and
> try to evade things that we think cause suffering.
I think this is sometimes true, if you mean one's own suffering. I think you
may be describing how things are "for you", and for many other, but I dont
think your description is universal at all.
> To
> say that is merely to describe how things are. My point
> is that less clinging and evasion actually means less
> suffering -- so I'm making a purely practical suggestion
> about the best means of achieving what we all want. Yes,
> this is what you "should" do -- but morality doesn't
> come into it!
>
> Metta,
> --
> Robin
Humm, Im sorry, but I still fail to see the difference.
Sodom
Bill Roh