What is GOOD?

[genkaus]

No, morality -stop me if you've already heard this- isn't the only motivation I have in life. Goodness for goodness' sake is not, in my opinion, very good.

Morality - stop me if you've already heard this - is not a motivations. It is what your motivations are judged by.

So is there some definitional reason why you think every ambition you have in life must be based in ones morality?

Why should any ambition be based on morality? Every ambition, on the other hand, should be judged by it.

Are you asserting that in fact that is the case for absolutely everybody? If so, those of us who don't conceive of ourselves as making moral choices all the time must just be fooling ourselves by your way of thinking.

Yes. And those who think they are making amoral choices are.

You can only reason your way from an ought. You had to have begun with some postulate oughts which you thought we'd all have to agree with. But the ought/desire/faith comes first as Chad just correctly observed. Without such a start, rationality has no toe hold.

If that is what I had done, then I wouldn't have said that I had reasoned an ought from an is. Point out which ought did I postulate as the basis and then you might have a point.

Then you no doubt have a different conception of your humanity than I do. I'm not denying that rationality is not part of the human package by the way. I just don't think it should be accepted as a bully boss.

Except, rationality cannot become a bully boss.

You may be correct about how empathy originates. I just don't know. But there do seem to be instances of it in the behavior of other mammals and even birds. So there may be a basis for empathy that goes deeper than our human culture.

This isn't how empathy originates - this is how its conscious application works. How did you forget the argument when I laid it out so clearly?

Regardless, I find no reason to ignore the urgings of empathy. I might just as well ignore my preferences when choosing dessert. What would be the point? But there are times when learned preferences collide and a decision must be made.

Except, by your own admission, you do find reasons to ignore the urgings of your empathy.

In another recent post I shared the conflict I noticed in my early teens between a physical revulsion I felt toward male homosexuality and a basic sense of fairness. I deliberately desensitized myself to male homosexuality to the point where it seems as fitting and wholesome as any other kind of union to me now.

Are you going to desensitize yourself to necrophilia next?

As I said there .. so it must seem to you. In fact I would say I embrace both instinct and thinking. My ideas do not align with yours but that doesn't mean I don't have any. You say "opted for rationality" so that makes you a willing domesticate. I see you as willingly putting on the yoke of rationality. I get the feeling there isn't much that arises in you which you trust or embrace unless rationality approves. Hence I say you've put the faithful servant in charge and set aside the sacred gift that Einstein referred to.

Given that I don't believe in god, I wouldn't consider anything to be a sacred gift. But, if I were to consider something as such, then I would say that it is our capacity for rationality that is the sacred gift - not our intuition or animal instinct. It is rationality that has brought us this far where the instincts wouldn't have taken us beyond the hunter-gatherer stage. And given your rejection, I can only assume that you have taken your animal instincts to be your master.

Serendipity, sacred gift .. humanity, call it what you will. It is like the singing of a little bird somewhere in you which is you too but more than the rational you. Without it your humanity is seriously compromised. You will have given up way too much for the sense of control you gain by abdicating to rationality.

So, listening to this 'singing bird' inside of me - this bird that sounds like little more than my animal instincts - will make me more human? You sound more and more like a theist with every argument.

I am truly sorry for you. I hope things improve.

Living whimsically sounds like an improvement? Don't make me laugh.

And you realize I'm okay with all of that, right? You may call them arbitrary unless they can be shown what everyone should do but that misses the point. What unifies those seemingly arbitrary choices is that they stem from me, they're mine.

And a theist is okay with his belief in precisely for the same reason. Doesn't mean I won't point out where he's wrong if he presents those to me.

So why would I argue that others should find what I have found?

I don't know. Why do you?

Justification is required for general claims. Where have I made one?

Here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-17345-po...#pid406367

I know more expect my moral choices to have justification than I do my preference for Rockyroad ice cream to have a justification. Whether to think God is hiding in the world seems a very different proposition than whether or not I truly prefer Rockyroad. I prefer it without evidence apart from the enjoyment I experience when I eat it. I have no such experience of God.

Given your use of the word apart - I'd say that you've shown the need for justification present for even the claim of your preference to Rockyroad.

I expect my choices to resonate with who I am and to spring from me. I don't look for validation by looking to see what choices others are making. My self appointed task is to make sure that at least one of us makes an authentic choice. That is all I can do.

I find joy in whim and make room for it where I can. But being a member of a community means I have other tasks to do too. Duties I embrace out of empathy.

So, your choice of earning a living, your choice of career - all those were made out of empathy?

You make my case. I don't claim to be free of unresolved contradictions. That is life as I find it. I resolve them where necessary and not always without regret. C'est la vie.

And that is why I consider my moral code to be superior to yours - less contradictions means less regrets.

---

Because sometimes the rational thing is not the emapthic thing.

So, what?

The US wanted to settle the interior that was occupied by the Native Americans and so set about trying to remove them.
This was rational but not moral.

It wasn't rational without both the goal and the methods to achieve it were justified.

Empathy is better on the whole but empathy tempered with rationality would be better.

Better in what sense? You seem to be presuming a moral standard before considering what its basis should be.