HFQ Official Snippet #20

One other point.

As far as we know, there are *no* existing samples of laws, rules, morality, ethics, or anything else that have come *directly* from the hand of any kind of "supreme being". All we have has been written and/or transcribed by various humans - some possibly with their own agendas that might have "colored" their writings, copies, or translations. Do we *know* that God ever really "gave" the eastern shore of the Mediterranean to the Hebrew people? Where's the deed signed by him? All we have is the word of some obviously "interested parties". Did God ever pen a document saying he made a Pope infallible once he took office? If so, where is it? Constantine "decided" which books to include in the Bible's we have today; who is to say that some of those "left out" weren't more accurate than some of those included? At the time of the selection, there *weren't* any eyewitnesses left to events that had occurred centuries prior, after all.

The closest we allegedly might come to *anything* directly given from anyone/thing other than a "fallible human" might be the original tablets with the Ten Commandments, but as far as we know they haven't survived to this day; *if* they ever existed in the first place, which is something many of us take on faith.

Tonto Silerheels wrote:JeffEngel wrote:

You need to open your mind up to other possibilities,

Thank you. I phrased my response as I did, that I could only see three possibilities, in hopes that someone would make me aware of others.

the notion that morality is about maximizing some inherently good thing, like happiness;

I discounted that because maximizing a good thing, and even choosing what the good things are, is a moral decision. Hitler said that it was good for the strong to overcome the week. Conan said that what's best in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women. So, which is it? And how do you choose without already having a system of morality to compare against?

The usual move is to pick out good thing(s) that are pretty nearly universally considered good, so that the remaining questions tend to be matter-of-fact ones: how do we maximize happiness or well-being?

And it's not something that's compared to a system of morality: these are candidates for that standard against which more concrete systems of morality are judged. How to evaluate them does involve seeing what answers they give to "test questions" where we've got generally agreed-upon moral intuitions. Some ethical systems can be considered essentially refining and spelling out those moral intuitions. Others are a bit more ambitious, with adherents claiming, in effect, if your moral intuitions deliver other answers, the moral intuitions are confused, bad, wrong, or inappropriate.

that it's about action in accordance with one or more virtues;

How can one act in accordance with some virtue if one doesn't know what the virtues are? If I act in accordance with one virtue and Conan with another, then which of us is virtuous?

Specific virtue theorists have different lists. Just what makes a particular attitude a virtue, a vice, or morally indifferent certainly isn't clear to me - not without using a standard outside virtue theory - but I'm not going to take a position as to whether that's a problem for virtue ethics, for the presentation of virtue ethics, or just my understanding of it. Similarly, how to resolve conflicts among virtues is a problem, but what sort, again, there are similar possibilities.

I'd just like to put forward the possibility that your inability to provide an answer off the top of your head, and mine delving only a little deeper, doesn't mean it's a complete non-starter for anyone ever.

or that it's acting in accord with various fundamental rules

How is this different from having a Pope?

How is it similar? This brand - it's called deontology, please don't ask why - has it that certain actions are just wrong for violating those fundamental rules, and that who may articulate them has nothing whatever to do with that. Indeed, the ur-example of deontologists, Immanuel Kant, had it that the fundamental rules were variations on the maxim "Act so that the maxim under which you act could at the same time consistently be willed a universal law." Less formally, act so that you'd still be fine doing that if everyone always acted under the same principle. Out of that, you get prohibitions on murder (if perhaps not executions), lying, and theft. Popes and priests are beside the point.

or from certain motivations.

If most people vote for a certain motivation, does that make it moral?

I suppose someone somewhere could try that out as a moral theory. Locally, moral relativists of the cultural variety (if any of them actually exist) may be some such species. But no, for the moral realists I'm mostly talking about, popularity of a principle has about nothing to do with its validity. The point of the moral theory is to offer some basis other than sheer force, threat of punishment or promise of reward, largely because acting on such an account doesn't seem particularly moral at all.

That it's about acting according to the will of some supreme being tends to get pretty short shrift among philosophers. Even the ones who favor some role for religion in morality tend to try to avoid divine command theory.

I'm sure you're right if you were polling the a-religious philosophers. I feel certain, though, that a supreme being is far more popular amongst religious philosophers.

~Tonto

Oh, the supreme being is popular among religious sorts of any variety. But even the religious philosophers by and large don't favor basing morality logically on what God says, precisely because (1) it looks like morality boils down, in that case, to kowtowing to the biggest bully ever (not the way the religious philosophers may put it, but they're certainly sensitive to the criticism), and (2) there's a logical issue in terms of whether a thing is right because God says so, or whether God says it is right because it is right. The former seems arbitrary; the latter means there's some other standard for right and wrong that Go is using, and that's the standard we're interested in.

Hi LouisR,

Upon further reflection,I suspect those couple(+?) thousand of Caribou, and couple(+) thousand snow lizards might be what RFC expects to move BGV at 25-30 miles per day, since a caribou or two might tow a 1/2-1 ton sled or toboggan that could carry half a squad or squad in a well insulated enclosure that keeps them warm and saves their energy, so they could rest on alternate days on the sled while still traveling 20-25 miles per day.

The inspiration for this idea goes way back to the Philaeni brothers from Carthage or Tripoli who where chosen as Carthage's/Tripoli champion runners against those of Cyrene in determining the border between them after leaving at a mutually agreed new moon or astronomic indicator, however instead of simply running every day then camping and repeating the next, the Philaeni brothers 'rested' by switch riding in a chariot, which is how they reached the bottom of the Gulf of Sirte before the Cyrenes did.

Accused of cheating, they supposedly accepted being buried alive to secure the border with their deaths and burial site, the Italians built an arch honoring them in 1937, Gaddafi blew it up sometime between 1970-74 given the conflicting reports.

If the thousands of winter animals, leaving the Morgan's solely for the dragoons, were concentrated on the first division or even the first winter brigade, the animal to man ratio might be high enough to dramatically increase their rate of advance in some manner similar to what I've described, because they're not really marching, but sledding to victory.

The important factor here is that despite what we know, RFC may have figured simple ways around the problems we see.

L


[quote="Louis R"]Let me be blunt for a change:

Anybody who imagines that Green Valley's projection for the movements of the Army of Midhold - the realistic one - isn't accurate is a blithering idiot who knows f-all about winter warfare.

Just to confirm my own experience [I'm trained in winter warfare, but not infantry], I checked with an ex-RCR platoon commander: he would expect to move his troops 30km/day _max_ under arctic/subarctic conditions - using modern mechanical transport for his logistics. And to sustain that pace for 10 days _max_. He figured 25km was more realistic because that wouldn't mean pushing excessively. FYI, the AoM kit list was, except for the sources of the fibres used and the fuel employed, drawn straight from Base Supply at CFB Shilo. I've used all of it myself. And yes, the Canadian Forces does have machines we can use for log support during the Arctic winter. For those who can't interpret the numbers, that's 18.6 and 15.5 miles per day. With troops who'll need a good rest after doing it. At this point, for Green Valley to make another 600 miles, the thaw has to be delayed until close to the end of April. That would surprise an awful lot of people, that would.

I'm actually a bit more optimistic than the Baron: I think he does have a chance of making it all the way to Ohlarn before the thaw starts, not just Fairkyn, but without knowing exactly were he is at the beginning of HFQ it's hard to be sure. What he will most definitely not do is get through the Gap, or catch Wyrshym huddled beside his stove. Wyrshym isn't an idiot; at the very least he's going to wonder why Gorthyk Nybar isn't complaining about how cold it is anymore - and take steps to find out. Wyrshym is also not a moral coward. If he has to stare down the Inquisition to operate intelligently, like Ahlverez he will do it. It would be surprising if he doesn't have at least 10, and more likely 20 - 30, days warning before Green Valley can cut the canal behind him. If he's still holding at Guarnak he'll get away clean with everything that isn't already in the Northland or Sylmahn Gaps, because he won't sit still to be cut off - and he's probably good enough to get many the latter troops out even if they're under attack. It would probably look rather more like a rout than he'd prefer, but he can probably do it. The one chance of actually cutting him off would be for all his reserves to be drawn forward by a attack in the gap and somehow pinned so that he can't disengage when the AoM moves down behind him. Given the skill already displayed by his commanders in getting themselves out of cracks, and BGV's reflections on the situation in the Gap, that would be, at best, difficult to accomplish.

Don't get too optimistic on this front.

OrlandoNative wrote:One other point.


The closest we allegedly might come to *anything* directly given from anyone/thing other than a "fallible human" might be the original tablets with the Ten Commandments, but as far as we know they haven't survived to this day; *if* they ever existed in the first place, which is something many of us take on faith.

I've often wondered why such an important document would be handed down on something as fragile as the tablets. You'd think God would want to put them on something a little more lasting, like an undestructible material only he could make.

OrlandoNative wrote:The closest we allegedly might come to *anything* directly given from anyone/thing other than a "fallible human" might be the original tablets with the Ten Commandments, but as far as we know they haven't survived to this day; *if* they ever existed in the first place, which is something many of us take on faith.

God's final words to Moses on Mt. Sinai?

"Keep taking the tablets"

Randomiser wrote:

Peter2 wrote:
You either did not read what I wrote, or read things into it that are not there. I used the phrase "ultimate power" – please note the word ultimate. I neither said nor implied – and nor do I believe – that religions should be powerless. On the contrary, I consider most of them (certainly the ones I know well) to be considerable and significant forces for good. But I maintain, as I said, that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and when that absolute (i.e. "ultimate") power rests with people who feel justified in shifting responsibility for their actions on to the shoulders of their God(s), there is a greater probability for it to be exercised with less restraint. I stand by what I wrote.

Peter, I'm glad to hear that you consider some religions to be considerable forces for good.

But what you wrote that I took exception to was

Peter2 wrote:There have been all sorts of governments, but From what I can see, those where ultimate power has been in the hands of the priesthood were far and away the worst.

(My Bold)

I was just asking you to tell us who you were thinking of that were a good deal worse than non-religious examples I gave. I note that you have not done so.

AS JeffEngels points out people have been great at finding all sorts of ways of evading personal responsibility for their actions many of which are totally non-religious. It is unreasonable and unhistorical to suggest that religions are particularly to blame for the worst governments ever.

I'm sorry, but you are still missing the point, and I say again, you are reading things into what I wrote that are not there. I made no mention of religion, it was you who introduced that. Read the sentence again. "There have been all sorts of governments, but from what I can see, those where ultimate power has been in the hands of the priesthood were far and away the worst." (my bold)

What I am talking about is people and power. Any power can be misused, even that of a religion – any religion (or belief system, as Jeff Engels said – thank you, Jeff), its identity doesn't matter. And I maintain the ability of a priesthood to bypass their consciences and justify their actions by shouting that that is what their God(s) want is the most dangerous of all. Every religion has its fanatics, and if they can convert others to their views in order to build a political power base and actually attain temporal power, it leads to a government that crucifies its opponents - metaphorically, and maybe even sometimes literally.

Anyway, that's all I have to say. I am not going to respond to any further posts in this thread.

jeremyr wrote:

I've often wondered why such an important document would be handed down on something as fragile as the tablets. You'd think God would want to put them on something a little more lasting, like an undestructible material only he could make.

Maybe so, but I suspect that you're postulating the existence of a god that's no smarter than I am. Or, at least, not much smarter. What if we were to postulate the existence of a god that's really, really smart. I mean real smart. To borrow a phrase from Douglas Adams, what if we were to postulate the existence of a god who's vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly smart? If we were to postulate the existence of such a smart god, might it be possible that he could think of a way to achieve one of his goals (or more) through the use of such fragile things?

~Tonto

p.s. You might be over-estimating the importance of the ten commandments. Neither the greatest commandment nor the second-greatest commandment appear on that list.

OrlandoNative wrote:

As far as we know, there are *no* existing samples of laws, rules, morality, ethics, or anything else that have come *directly* from the hand of any kind of "supreme being". All we have has been written and/or transcribed by various humans - some possibly with their own agendas that might have "colored" their writings, copies, or translations.

Very interesting! I suppose the same thing might be said of the Constitution of the United States of America. Or the Eiffel Tower. Or the Colossus of Rhodes. Or the Code of Hammurabi. Or the Odyssey. Or the thirteen books of Euclid. Or Alexander the Great. I mean, I had this history teacher once that told me that there was a guy that conquered the entire known world by the age of 30, but I have to wonder: what was in it for him?

~Tonto

n7axw wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:For that matter, if you substitute things like "the General Will", "racial imperative", "the dialectic of history", or even "freedom and our way of life" for "God" in the same dynamic, you get the same results.

Bravo, Jeff, for that last sentence! The thing that I find hardest to teach is that our dynamic, the God and country dynamic, can be just as evil as any of the isms when it turns into an our bunch better than the rest mentality.

The only thing that can prevent that is a solid commitment to servanthood.

Don

I'm not too sure about servanthood. How does this include ego/self, that sort of thing? Applying the KISS rule, moral behavior IMHO is following the Golden Rule. Beyond that things get a lot murkier.

JeffEngel wrote:

The usual move is to pick out good thing(s) that are pretty nearly universally considered good...

Yeah, but you told me that I should open my mind to possibilities other than voting.

And it's not something that's compared to a system of morality: these are candidates for that standard against which more concrete systems of morality are judged.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me. What's not something that's compared to a system of morality? The things that are almost universally considered good, the matter-of-fact questions, or the candidates for the standard? Are you saying that the standard is morality? If so, then how do you choose a moral standard absent a moral system. And if not then how can an amoral standard judge between systems of morality?

Others are a bit more ambitious, with adherents claiming, in effect, if your moral intuitions deliver other answers, the moral intuitions are confused, bad, wrong, or inappropriate.

Yeah, but you told me to open my mind to possibilities other than the existence of elites who have better moral standards than others who are non-elite (I compared that to the Pope.)

Specific virtue theorists have different lists. Just what makes a particular attitude a virtue, a vice, or morally indifferent certainly isn't clear to me - not without using a standard outside virtue theory - but I'm not going to take a position as to whether that's a problem for virtue ethics, for the presentation of virtue ethics, or just my understanding of it. Similarly, how to resolve conflicts among virtues is a problem, but what sort, again, there are similar possibilities.

Yeah, but you told me to open my mind to other possibilities than that every man's morality is equal to every other man's morality.

I'd just like to put forward the possibility that your inability to provide an answer off the top of your head, and mine delving only a little deeper, doesn't mean it's a complete non-starter for anyone ever.

Yeah, that's why I said that I saw only three possibilities--so someone could tell me what other possibilities there were. Are there others? If there are, how do you know?

How is it similar?

The Pope has a bunch of rules. Those rules are fundamental, and are written in ancient books. The Pope has another bunch of rules, some of which are fundamental,and are written in encyclicals. One of those rules is how to change the rules.

Indeed, the ur-example of deontologists, Immanuel Kant, had it that the fundamental rules were variations on the maxim "Act so that the maxim under which you act could at the same time consistently be willed a universal law."

Kant was an idiot, and the question whether to accept his maxim is, itself, a moral question. Whether I have sex with my wife is a moral question. Whether the entire universe does is a separate moral question with a, possibly, different answer.

But no, for the moral realists I'm mostly talking about, popularity of a principle has about nothing to do with its validity. The point of the moral theory is to offer some basis other than sheer force, threat of punishment or promise of reward, largely because acting on such an account doesn't seem particularly moral at all.

Yeah, but you told me to open my mind to other possibilities than that every man's morality is equal to every other man's morality, or that there exist an elite man on earth whose morality is equal or better than everyone else's.

Oh, the supreme being is popular among religious sorts of any variety.

So, you agree with me that you were mistaken when you said acting according to the will of some supreme being tends to get pretty short shrift among philosophers?

But even the religious philosophers by and large don't favor basing morality logically on what God says, precisely because (1) it looks like morality boils down, in that case, to kowtowing to the biggest bully ever (not the way the religious philosophers may put it, but they're certainly sensitive to the criticism), and (2) there's a logical issue in terms of whether a thing is right because God says so, or whether God says it is right because it is right. The former seems arbitrary; the latter means there's some other standard for right and wrong that Go is using, and that's the standard we're interested in.

Oh, I agree with you completely! My problem is that knowing what problems religious philosophers have is no aid in learning how to choose a system of morality. I'm trying to open my mind to the possibilities, but I keep hitting roadblocks where any choice entails a logical contradiction. Unlike the Red Queen, I've made the moral choice not to accept any system with logical contradictions, but finding three such systems with hasn't furthered my ability to find one system without.

~Tonto