Michael Moore's sicko leaked on to the free internet servers

Remember the Heinz dilemna:

Laura said:
Here is a story composed nearly forty years ago that was part of a "test" of moral reasoning.

Heinz's Dilemma

Heinz's wife is dying from a rare form of cancer. According to the doctors, there is one drug that could save her, a radium compound that a druggist in Heinz's town has recently discovered. The ingredients for the drug are expensive to begin with, and the druggist is charging ten times what it costs him to make the medicine. The druggist pays two hundred dollars for the radium and charges his customers two thousand dollars for a small dose. Heinz goes to everyone he can think of and asks to borrow money. Still, he ends up with only about one thousand dollars. Heinz explains to the druggist that his wife will die without the drug, and asks him to sell the medicine at a cheaper price or to take payment later. But the druggist replies, "No, I discovered the drug, and I'm going to make money from it." Heinz becomes desperate. He breaks into the druggist's store and steals the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have done that?

Please read the problem carefully before responding. I'll give it a day or two before I continue.
Click to expand...
From the thread: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=215
message #9
 
Zadius Sky said:
Gurdjieff actually mentioned that in Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous." It is worthy of note.
Click to expand...
Here's the relevant passage from ISOTM:

G said:
"The concept 'conscience' has nothing in common with the concept 'morality.'

"Conscience is a general and a permanent phenomenon. Conscience is the same
for all men and conscience is possible only in the absence of 'buffers.'

"From the point of view of understanding the different categories of man we
may say that there exists the conscience of a man in whom there are no
contradictions. This conscience is not suffering; on the contrary it is joy
of a totally new character which we are unable to understand.

"But even a momentary awakening of conscience in a man who has thousands of
different I's is bound to involve suffering. And if these moments of
conscience become longer and if a man does not fear them but on the contrary
cooperates with them and tries to keep and prolong them, an element of very
subtle joy, a foretaste of the future 'clear consciousness' will gradually
enter into these moments.

"There is nothing general in the concept of 'morality.' Morality consists of
buffers. There is no general morality. What is moral in China is immoral in
Europe and what is moral in Europe is immoral in China. What is moral in
Petersburg is immoral in the Caucasus. And what is moral in the Caucasus is
immoral in Petersburg. What is moral in one class of society is immoral in
another and vice versa. Morality is always and everywhere an artificial
phenomenon. It consists of various 'taboos,' that is, restrictions, and
various demands, sometimes sensible in their basis and sometimes having lost
all meaning or never even having had any meaning, and having been created on
a false basis, on a soil of superstition and false fears.

"Morality consists of 'buffers.' And since 'buffers' are of various kinds,
and as the conditions of life in different countries and in different ages
or among different classes of society vary considerably, so the morality
created by them is also very dissimilar and contradictory.

"A morality common to all does not exist. It is even impossible to say that
there exists any general idea of morality, for instance, in Europe. It is
said sometimes that the general morality for Europe is 'Christian morality.'
But first of all the idea of 'Christian morality' itself admits of very many
different interpretations and many different crimes have been justified by
'Christian morality.' And in the second place modern Europe has very little
in common with 'Christian morality,' no matter how we understand this
morality.

"In any case, if 'Christian morality' brought Europe to the war which is now
going on, then it would be as well to be as far as possible from such
morality,"

"Many people say that they do not understand the moral side of your
teaching," said one of us. "And others say that your teaching has no
morality at all."

"Of course not," said G. "People are very fond of talking about morality.
But morality is merely self-suggestion. What is necessary is conscience.

"We do not teach morality. We teach how to find conscience.

"People are not pleased when we say this. They say that we have no love.
Simply because we do not encourage weakness and hypocrisy but, on the
contrary, take off all masks.

"He who desires the truth will not speak of love or of Christianity because
he knows how far he is from these. Christian teaching is for Christians. And
Christians are those who live, that is, who do everything, according to
Christ's precepts. Can they who talk of love and morality live according to
Christ's precepts? Of course they cannot; but there will always be talk of
this kind, there will always be people to whom words are more precious than
anything else.

"But this is a true sign! He who speaks like this is an empty man; it is not
worth while wasting time on him.

"Morality and conscience are quite different things. One conscience can
never contradict another conscience. One morality can always very easily
contradict and completely deny another.

"A man with 'buffers' may be very moral. And 'buffers' can be very
different, that is, two very moral men may consider each other very immoral.
As a rule it is almost inevitably so. The more 'moral' a man is, the more
'immoral' does he think other moral people.

"The idea of morality is connected with the idea of good and evil conduct.
But the idea of good and evil is always different for different people,
always subjective in man number one, number two, and number three, and is
connected only with a given moment or a given situation. A subjective man
can have no general concept of good and evil.

"For a subjective man evil is everything that is opposed to his desires or
interests or to his conception of good.

"One may say that evil does not exist for subjective man at all, that there
exist only different conceptions of good. Nobody ever does anything
deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everybody acts
in the interests of good, as he understands it. But everybody understands it
in a different way.

"Consequently men drown, slay, and kill one another in the interests of
good. The reason is again just the same, men's ignorance and the deep sleep
in which they live.

"This is so obvious that it even seems strange that people have never
thought of it before. However, the fact remains that they fail to understand
this and everyone considers his good as the only good and all the rest as
evil. It is naive and useless to hope that men will ever understand this and
that they will evolve a general and identical idea of good."

"But do not good and evil exist in themselves apart from man?" asked someone
present.

"They do," said G., "only this is very far away from us and it is not worth
your while even to try to understand this at present. Simply remember one
thing. The only possible permanent idea of good and evil for man is
connected with the idea of evolution; not with mechanical evolution, of
course, but with the idea of man's development through conscious efforts,
the change of his being, the creation of unity in him, and the formation of
a permanent I.

"A permanent idea of good and evil can be formed in man only in connection
with a permanent aim and a permanent understanding.

"If a man understands that he is asleep and if he wishes to awake, then
everything that helps him to awake will be good and everything that hinders
him, everything that prolongs his sleep, will be evil.

"Exactly in the same way will he understand what is good and evil for other
people. What helps them to awake is good, what hinders them is evil.

"But this is so only for those who want to awake, that is, for those who
understand that they are asleep. Those who do not understand that they are
asleep and those who can have no wish to awake, cannot have understanding of
good and evil. And as the overwhelming majority of people do not realize and
will never realize that they are asleep, neither good nor evil can actually
exist for them.

"This contradicts generally accepted ideas. People are accustomed to think
that good and evil must be the same for everyone, and above all that good
and evil exist for everyone. In reality, however, good and evil exist only
for a few, for those who have an aim and who pursue that aim. Then what
hinders the pursuit of that aim is evil and what helps is good.
Click to expand...
 
Please consider this : Morality ( however you determine it ) plays no positive part in evolution.

The Human Race has evolved to the point of gaining consciousness. Many Biologists sadly consider this a freak occurance, playing no progressive part in evolution, a hindrance to the ruthless efficiency of natural selection.

With consciousness has come conscience, within conscience is morality in it's undetermined form. How an individuals morality is going to manifest itself is governed by the environment that individual finds himself/herself in, but not always. The vast majority it does apply to.

As Humans, we are capable of observing efficient evolutionary progress. The Honey Bee society is typical of such success. That success comes at a price. Exterminate non-productive individuals within the society & efficiency is maintained.

Nazi Germany was the last to tinker with such a practice openly ( lethal injection for the insane of their community ) but even those sicko's could'nt bring themselves to apply it further than that.

Leo Strauss, having experienced Nazi tyranny, is something of an enigma. His lunatic disciples, now being termed The U.S. Neo Conservatives. Have they creamed off just his basic philosophy of a supposed "intellectual" few governing the mindless mass of a society. Surely such an "intellectual" few must hold to moral standards as we consider them within Western Society. Was Strauss truly advocating exploitation of the mindless masses for the financial benefit of the few ?

Attempts at a "moral", just social system has maybe been seen just a very few times in Human history. The most recent being attitudes of some South Pacific island communities over many centuries & also within certain Jewish communities. Western Society is, at present, trying it's hardest, The U.S. & maybe Britain are experiencing a potentially serious glitch at the moment.

I have to be optomistic. U.S. citizens, more than most, know how to fight for freedom. Immoral forces within your society have shown their hand, it would be best to deal with them now before they gain a greater stranglehold.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One interpretation of Magna Carta --

By virue of Magna Carta, the Englishman is able to do what he likes - provided he does what he is told.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
BritishSubject said:
Please consider this : Morality ( however you determine it ) plays no positive part in evolution.

The Human Race has evolved to the point of gaining consciousness. Many Biologists sadly consider this a freak occurance, playing no progressive part in evolution, a hindrance to the ruthless efficiency of natural selection.

With consciousness has come conscience, within conscience is morality in it's undetermined form. How an individuals morality is going to manifest itself is governed by the environment that individual finds himself/herself in, but not always. The vast majority it does apply to.

As Humans, we are capable of observing efficient evolutionary progress. The Honey Bee society is typical of such success. That success comes at a price. Exterminate non-productive individuals within the society & efficiency is maintained.
Click to expand...
doesn't that depend on what you call 'productive'? is that really evolution. by ignoring conscience/consciousness and the 'creative principle'? it seems like a totally mechanical and psychopathic world view.

BritishSubject said:
Nazi Germany was the last to tinker with such a practice openly ( lethal injection for the insane of their community ) but even those sicko's could'nt bring themselves to apply it further than that.

Leo Strauss, having experienced Nazi tyranny, is something of an enigma. His lunatic disciples, now being termed The U.S. Neo Conservatives. Have they creamed off just his basic philosophy of a supposed "intellectual" few governing the mindless mass of a society. Surely such an "intellectual" few must hold to moral standards as we consider them within Western Society. Was Strauss truly advocating exploitation of the mindless masses for the financial benefit of the few ?

Attempts at a "moral", just social system has maybe been seen just a very few times in Human history. The most recent being attitudes of some South Pacific island communities over many centuries & also within certain Jewish communities. Western Society is, at present, trying it's hardest, The U.S. & maybe Britain are experiencing a potentially serious glitch at the moment.
Click to expand...
I think you are using a completely different vocabulary to most here, when you talk about 'moral', 'immoral', 'conscience', 'productivity', 'evolution'. I don't know where to start...

BritishSubject said:
I have to be optomistic. U.S. citizens, more than most, know how to fight for freedom.
Click to expand...
is that supposed to be some kind of a sick joke?

BritishSubject said:
Immoral forces within your society have shown their hand, it would be best to deal with them now before they gain a greater stranglehold.
Click to expand...
now I'm just confused. first you say morality plays no part in evolution. then you seem to be advocating stamping out immorality.
 
sleepyvinny,

Can I please ask if you yourself are a Creationist ? What is meant by " Creative Principle " ?
 
BritishSubject said:
sleepyvinny, Can I please ask if you yourself are a Creationist ? What is meant by " Creative Principle " ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if there is a single accepted definition but if this one holds:
wiki said:
The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the book of Genesis
Click to expand...
then, no.

'Creative Principle'? I am talking about the opposite of entropy/destruction - ie some dynamic, some conscious happening within the universe that leads to the emergence/growth of something intrinsically new and unique in its value, that 'wasn't there before' - a process which requires a 'conscious application of intent', more than simple mechanical carrying out of a predetermined process. I don't know if I expressed that very well. how DOES one sum up 'creativity'?!

in the context given, I was questioning your suggestion that evolution is a wholy mechanical (and unaware) process. My understanding was that you were subscribing to the (popular) opinion that 'consciousness' is merely an accidental byproduct of a mechanical process.
 
sleepyvinny said:
BritishSubject said:
sleepyvinny, Can I please ask if you yourself are a Creationist ? What is meant by " Creative Principle " ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if there is a single accepted definition but if this one holds:
wiki said:
The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the book of Genesis
Click to expand...
then, no.

'Creative Principle'? I am talking about the opposite of entropy/destruction - ie some dynamic, some conscious happening within the universe that leads to the emergence/growth of something intrinsically new and unique in its value, that 'wasn't there before' - a process which requires a 'conscious application of intent', more than simple mechanical carrying out of a predetermined process. I don't know if I expressed that very well. how DOES one sum up 'creativity'?!

in the context given, I was questioning your suggestion that evolution is a wholy mechanical (and unaware) process. My understanding was that you were subscribing to the (popular) opinion that 'consciousness' is merely an accidental byproduct of a mechanical process.
Click to expand...
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________sleepyvinny,

When evolution is comprised of 99.99999999999999999 % failure, the rest being advantageous development......... Dont you think this supposed conscious creator you refer to has dropped something of a bollock ?
 
BritishSubject said:
When evolution is comprised of 99.99999999999999999 % failure, the rest being advantageous development......... Dont you think this supposed conscious creator you refer to has dropped something of a bollock ?
Click to expand...
I didn't refer to a single conscious creator. I refered to the concept of 'creativity', without elabourating how that might apply, because I don't necessarily know. maybe you don't recognise this concept?

I think you are suggesting that any event which does not comprise 'advantageous development' is a failure. what do you mean by 'advantageous development'? that could be a euphemism for all kinds of things! I can think of many contexts in which an 'advantageous development' for one means a 'failure' for someone else - eg a predator catching his prey - are you going down the John Nash 'game theory' route or did you mean something else?
 
BritishSubject said:
When evolution is comprised of 99.99999999999999999 % failure, the rest being advantageous development......... Dont you think this supposed conscious creator you refer to has dropped something of a bollock ?
Click to expand...
You seem to not have understood sleepyvinny's point. He clearly stated that he is not 'a creationist' - he is not talking about a 'conscious creator' in the terms you seem to be understanding it.

He is talking about creativity as opposed to mechanical or even entropic processes, not some 'creator entity' deciding who and what to create.

It seems to me that sleepyvinny has posed some very good questions that you have yet to address, but it is not clear if this is because you simply do not fully understand the questions due to a lack of understanding of the vocabulary used, or if you are simply avoiding the questions.
 
sleepyvinny said:
BritishSubject said:
When evolution is comprised of 99.99999999999999999 % failure, the rest being advantageous development......... Dont you think this supposed conscious creator you refer to has dropped something of a bollock ?
Click to expand...
I didn't refer to a single conscious creator. I refered to the concept of 'creativity', without elabourating how that might apply, because I don't necessarily know. maybe you don't recognise this concept?

I think you are suggesting that any event which does not comprise 'advantageous development' is a failure. what do you mean by 'advantageous development'? that could be a euphemism for all kinds of things! I can think of many contexts in which an 'advantageous development' for one means a 'failure' for someone else - eg a predator catching his prey - are you going down the John Nash 'game theory' route or did you mean something else?
Click to expand...
This is getting heavy ! It need not.

What I am simply refering to is the very precarious progress of evolution. That progress depends on reproductive genetic mistakes occuring. Very few & far between, some result in an improvement to a lifeforms lot, giving it further survival potential. Basic Darwinian Theory.
 
sleepyviny wrote ;--

'Creative Principle'? I am talking about the opposite of entropy/destruction - ie some dynamic, some conscious happening within the universe that leads to the emergence/growth of something intrinsically new and unique in its value, that 'wasn't there before' - a process which requires a 'conscious application of intent', more than simple mechanical carrying out of a predetermined process. I don't know if I expressed that very well. how DOES one sum up 'creativity'?!


anart,
Read the above. I simply asked sleepyvinny to define "Creative Principle". Pardon my lack of comprehension of English grammar, even you're suggestion of my command of written expression. I have to admit to being no wiser.

I am a humble Engineer, I like solid objects, things I can clearly grasp & hopefully understand. I will leave concepts (notions) to dreamers. Concepts allow the mind to run rampant. It has'nt benefited Man to date.
 
BritishSubject said:
This is getting heavy ! It need not.
Click to expand...
only because I questioned something you said :P

BritishSubject said:
What I am simply refering to is the very precarious progress of evolution. That progress depends on reproductive genetic mistakes occuring. Very few & far between, some result in an improvement to a lifeforms lot, giving it further survival potential. Basic Darwinian Theory.
Click to expand...
fair enough. And I was introducing the possibility that this 'mechanical process' is not necessarily all there is - in fact it may simply be the 'side effect' of something else - like the shadows on Plato's cave (google it if you're not sure)

in fact, to think that this is all there is seems to be missing a whole lot. and it is exactly what the psychos in power do, and why they make the decisions they do, which cause absolute chaos. so I thought it was quite an important point. and one that you seem to be stuck on?

basically I was trying to introduce some alternative ideas for consideration, which might help the confusion you seemed to have regarding the ambiguities of morality, and the difference between morality and conscience. It is not a simple subject, I realise, but then you brought it up!
 
sleepyvinny said:
BritishSubject said:
This is getting heavy ! It need not.
Click to expand...
only because I questioned something you said :P

BritishSubject said:
What I am simply refering to is the very precarious progress of evolution. That progress depends on reproductive genetic mistakes occuring. Very few & far between, some result in an improvement to a lifeforms lot, giving it further survival potential. Basic Darwinian Theory.
Click to expand...
fair enough. And I was introducing the possibility that this 'mechanical process' is not necessarily all there is - in fact it may simply be the 'side effect' of something else - like the shadows on Plato's cave (google it if you're not sure)

in fact, to think that this is all there is seems to be missing a whole lot. and it is exactly what the psychos in power do, and why they make the decisions they do, which cause absolute chaos. so I thought it was quite an important point. and one that you seem to be stuck on?

basically I was trying to introduce some alternative ideas for consideration, which might help the confusion you seemed to have regarding the ambiguities of morality, and the difference between morality and conscience. It is not a simple subject, I realise, but then you brought it up!
Click to expand...
sleepyvinny,

Our outlook on life may not be all that different really. I have an absolute belief though that morality (as we consider it the West) is a product of conscience. They go hand in hand.
 
BritishSubject said:
I have an absolute belief though that morality (as we consider it the West) is a product of conscience. They go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
Beliefs are going to be questioned around here. This is not a place where people get to pontificate about their beliefs, especially if they are unwilling/unable to alter said beliefs when new data is presented. Did you read the quote that I posted where Gurdjieff talks about the inherent differences between conscience and morality?
 
beau said:
BritishSubject said:
I have an absolute belief though that morality (as we consider it the West) is a product of conscience. They go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
Beliefs are going to be questioned around here. This is not a place where people get to pontificate about their beliefs, especially if they are unwilling/unable to alter said beliefs when new data is presented. Did you read the quote that I posted where Gurdjieff talks about the inherent differences between conscience and morality?
Click to expand...
Oh Shit. I'm about to get myself into hot water.

Yes I read it. I was careful to include, " as we consider it in the West ". We have more or less very similar cultures across western countries, a common perception of things that are right & things that are wrong within our own culture. Being Democracies broadly practicing secularism, we have formed a culture that suits ourselves. Imperfect but the best we have come up with. Common moral standards peculiar to our culture exist. To remain stable a basic code of moral conduct has to be adhered to. Most of our laws have been made based on western moral judgement. Not all.

A nasty controlling influence has crept into the background of U.S. government & it aint all bothered about holding to western standards of basic morality.





Gurdjieff has spoken. How dare anybody question Gurdjieff. New data has been presented by " beau ".

Gurdjieff is a mere mortal with an opinion for goodness sake. This is a forum for crying out loud. Constructive argument & debate is called for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom