h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

BH. The Christian answer to that one is the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=matthew+20:1-16&version=NIV

toxx

<>

If that's the case, then why haven't they corrected their Holy Bible?

Insight:
"Post 21134:

Indeed, the creation account suggests things being made one step at a time."

Does it? Which creation account are you referring to?

"But I always think it seems most logical to consider the way humans create things"

The way humans 'create' things is very different to natural selection. Natural selection doesn't 'create' anything, it improves on that which already exists. The process in which natural selection improves on that which exists is very different to the way humans go about it. We don't usually manufacture thousands of random variations and choose the best. We design, nature doesn't.



stoneageman

Hi Toxxin

"I have mentioned before in this thread that I consider ethics to be species-specific to humans."

You need to get out more and meet a few more non-humans . The fey have an ethical model of their own that often seems cruel and whimsical to us, but fits their life of many worlds.

It does, however, have clear models of honour, duty and love, that mirror our own.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Sorry, Math! I wasn't considering the possibility of a non-human ethic. Actually, what you say seems to confirm my view that ethics are species-specific; that is, if 'the fey' are all 'related' in some way.

toxx

Hi Esty



I don’t think that could really be true. Its like saying if I take a trip on a train to somewhere, I believe that I am going to end up in my chosen destination. However I could have boarded the wrong train and ended up in the wrong place or the train may terminate early due to some sort of problem (happened to me on more than one occasion!).

My point is just because we believe we are going somewhere doesn’t necessarily mean that we will end up there. Personally I believe I will go nowhere when I die and my brain and body we no longer be working therefore I will experience complete nothingness. The closest thing I can think that this nothingness is like is being put to sleep with anesthetic before an operation. That’s so weird; you literally wake up from complete nothingness….I am sure that’s what being dead is like!

As for time travel, I am not too sure if it’s possible, but it does present certain problems. For example if you could go back in time, and killed your mother before you were conceived and therefore preventing yourselves from ever being born, then how did you then go back in time to kill yourself? Some scientists have explained this problem by saying that the person in question would only be able to travel back in time to another parallel universe. This theory; however seems to suggest that there are many parallel universes, exactly the same as ours.

I think the problem is there still is just so much us humans don’t know!

Peter

I believe current theory is that some elementary particles travel back in time, although not very far at all. Possibly tachyons too? Although they probably don't exist.

I don't think the universe cares too much about paradoxes. If it was possible to go back in time and do that I don't expect you'd fade out of existence or anything like that. Nor would I consider it a parallell universe. More like your old time would become sort of rolled up and put at the beginning of the moment you came back, but everything that happened in it would still have been done to maintain cause and effect, even if the only effect from it was the time traveller.

<>

*shrug* I guess they'd go to complete oblivion, because that would be the easiest course, and, logically, default.

Peter-

That's my theory. Feel free to have your own theory, I just adopt whatever appeals to me.

AS for time travel, I personally believe in parallel universes, many of them, but do not believe that time travel is actually feasible, althoguh it makes for good stories. And, according to another Discworld book, what's already happened stays happened. In other words, time isn't a river, it's more like something completely incomprehensible to mortal minds and you can't cause something to unhappen in your personal timeline, but everything that could have happened from something else happening has happened in a different universe. Complicated, ne? Time travel could not happen in any of our lifetimes, so no reason to worry about it.

PS The longest thread on hootoo is the No No No thread, over 68000 posts and counting.

Hi peter

"My point is just because we believe we are going somewhere doesn’t necessarily mean that we will end up there."

Uhuh, but what if we have been there before, many times, at the end of many lives? Remember that there are more ideas of what lies beyond the gate than just the old Abrahamic Heaven or Hell.

There are those here, Buddhists, Hindu and pagans who have experienced reincarnation. For us death is not the gateway to a fearful judgement by an uncaring ubergod. Instead it is just one more gate on a long and joyful journey.

As for time travel we are already doing it. Each moment is another step forward in time. I personally do not understand the obsession with going backwards into an already known past. Surely it is more exciting to travel forward into an unknown future?

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Math: Well, the most common interpretation of 'time travel' is travelling forward in time at a rate faster than 1 second per second. That is most definitely impossible by current standards, but, true, there is not much point in going back except to when there is no records. Besides, presumably there is some direction you cannot go, backwards or forwards; then what's the point, if you can't get back?

Well for instance you could make loads of money using your knowledge of what was going to happen (don't be too cocky - your actions are screwing things up as you do it). Then buy a few world governments make some laws on pollution, for example. I thought that one might appeal to you, although if you'd prefer the traditonal life of luxury then that's cool too.

I have to say Peter, that I don't agree with you that <>
I think that there is objectively good and evil... What societies define as good and evil is remarkably consistent across cultures and across time. We all agree that that early and preventable death from disease, and the consequences of hurricanes, volcanoes etc constitute what might be called "natural evil," and that murder, rape, incest, and such constitute what could be called "man-made" evil.

In my opinion, Blackberry Cat, deathbed conversions (or neighboring cross ones) are valid, and have to be! After all as people, we find our views and attitudes constantly changing... if we don't, we're dead from the neck up!

Hmmm. What about cannibal societies? What about the Golden Hoarde? What about Aztec sacrifices? What about the concept of buying wives?

And what about the way that everyone disagrees with each other over moral issues? Hardly suggests a common moral concept does it?

And of course even if we could find a form of morality completely common to humans it wouldn't necessarily suggest an objective source. For example a moral could be something that allowed a society to exist (perhaps the basic rules of trade?), in which case all societies would have it, and since they're the ones that wrote all the records...

Or there could even be 'morals' that have evolved to help human survival. I'm struggling with an example for this one a little . Well actually looking at your list, incest is a good start. If you think about it, there's not really a reason why incest between consenting adults should be morally wrong. It doesn't hurt anyone, except perhaps their offspring. Its just not a good evolutionary survival strategy for humans.

There have certainly been parts of the world at times where the idea of diametrically opposed good and evil didn't really exist.

E&C. I think this is a key point. If only monodirectional time-travel is possible, then you're stuck, unless you choose to go further in that direction. Having gone back into the past, you presumably 'drift' forward at one second per second. Go back one minute, and there are two of you in existence at the same time. Visit the future and return to a time before you left and there are also two of you. Will you both go on that time-trip again when the time comes again?

Again, if travel is one-way, then knowledge that large scale time-travel has been achieved won't be obtained from here, because it won't get back to us. Our best bet is those good, old-fashioned visitors from the future.

toxx

Hi, BHITM. I think what we have here is a confusion between 'ethics' and 'morality'. For me, 'ethics' is a common basis of all moralities. For example, maybe it is universally the case that decreasing suffering and increasing pleasure characterise right behaviour. We can also talk about 'good' behaviour; but if we could have done better, then that isn't the same as 'right'.

Morality is specific to particular groups or societies at particular times and places. There surely are conflicts between these, partly because they haven't perhaps sufficiently thought through the ethical basis of their morality; they have been unduly influenced by a religion, for example; or they have applied one morality to their perceived subgroup and another to others such as foreigners, slaves, children etc.

toxx

Hi Della

"I think that there is objectively good and evil... "

Nope, it is an invention of the duality obsessed abrahamics. the easy way out when defining human behaviour.

The definition of good and evil changes considerably from society to society. For instance under OT Law and modern Sharia Law adultery is considered so evil that it attracts the death penalty! Yet on Polynesian islands and amongst the Inuit, where the available gene pool is pretty small, the view on adultery is a lot more relaxed.

Others have pointed out cultures in our past (and some might argue present) in which killing was acceptable. Modern evangelicals, especially in the USA, have been busily redefining that old chesnut of a commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' to 'Thou shalt not murder'. Thus allowing them to support any amount of war to protect Israel.

There are no absolutes of good and evil, just a continuum between a number of extremes.

Another issue here is the humancentric nature of the standard definitions of good and evil. For instance Torture is evil, except where is is used on rabbits and primates to ensure eye shadow is safe.

In fact torture is a good one. Questions for you who believe in Good and Evil.
1) Should we accept intelligence that may save thousands if that intelligence was obtained through torture of a suspected terrorist?
2) What if that 'terrorist' was a ten year old palestinian girl?

Both of tha above are based on real events, happening now, in the cradle of abrahamic civilisation.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Esty and Coren

Ah, but time is elastic, depending upon whether your experience of it is subjective or objective. One second per second is meaningless here.

For example:
Spend two hours painting a picture and time rushes past in a blur.
Spend two hours watching someone painting a picture and it slows to a trickle.

Also one doesn't consider the evidence of those who travel between worlds and/or states of consciousness (including Buddhists, Hindu mystics and various pagans). Because we have become attuned to the spirits of the land and of our ancestor we do experience different times and places outside the standard concets of forwards/backwards time.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

This is almost true Math (I'd say 'right and wrong'), but that's morality not ethics. See my previous post.

I go most of the way with Adelaide: "I think that there is objectively good and evil... "; although I would say 'intersubjectively' rather than 'objectively'.

Yes, right and wrong vary with societies. Nevertheless, I take the view that it is possible to be right or wrong about what is right or wrong! To say otherwise is to assume that these things are essentially arbitrary. I know you well enough to be sure that you wouldn't take it to be right in any society to believe that torturing children for fun is OK. Wouldn't you agree that this would be an evil definition?

toxx

Hi Toxxin

My problem is that many people objectify evil and good. They turn them into forces, and from there it is only a short step into turning them into beings.

Indeed this is basis of much of the philosophy of the abrahamic religions.

Also they begin to ascribe these subjective principles to people. Thus one man can be considered to be evil. Unfortunately this sort of over-simplification only serves those who wish to use it to justify their own evil. For example, 'Islamic' terrorists are evil and so it is alright for 'good' people to bomb the suburbs of Fallujah, knowing that innocents will be killed, as it is for the 'greater good'.

Actions can be good or evil, people are not.

If we take it to extremes then we get people saying that tornadoes and hurricanes are a 'natural evil'. Give me strength! They are part of the natural cycles of the planet.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethics
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morals

Suggests that morals refer to personal conduct, whereas ethics refers to a system thereof.

Personally I have a nasty feeling I'm going to continue to mix them up a lot.

"For example, maybe it is universally the case that decreasing suffering and increasing pleasure characterise right behaviour".

I would suggest that particular system along with "an ye harm none, do as ye will," etc. are common moral systems because they help a society to run smoothly. i.e. its majority are prepared to make the trade off of not screwing with other people in return for their own security.

Examples of people that would disagree with these systems: ascetics, sadists and masochists.