4 ms·

Makes good sense. If we were like Lions, every action we’d ever do would be roughly correct (can still be a mistake, but not wrong). To echo Death, you can see

by ivape 1y ago

Makes good sense. If we were like Lions, every action we’d ever do would be roughly correct (can still be a mistake, but not wrong). To echo Death, you can see how I’m failing at describing this because I’m still constrained by right and wrong. For example, a Lion committing infanticide is not immoral. By all definitions of an animal, nothing a human does is immoral. So why are we immoral then?

mapontosevenths 1y ago
> So why are we immoral then? Mostly because it's easier than the alternative. More seriously, you've just described the "moral" of the story of Adam and Eve. In that view of the world our problem is that we understand morality (thanks to that apple eating strumpet) and therefore can make choices. Animals, infants, and the simple-minded have no such concept and therefore can't be held responsible for violating it. This, of course, all nonsense and implies a sort of paternalistic universe, but it was always going to be that way. Everything we know is defined by it's relationship to something else we know, and we don't know God. We know Dad. Fundamentally it's a way to make God seem like less of a child-abusing jerk. A sky-daddy who "punishes" those who understand morality, but grants slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies is just nicer for people to believe in.
- ivape 1y ago
  Let’s take God’s punishment unto man from the events of Eden for a moment. If you don’t hold a creature given morality accountable, then that creature is fundamentally the same as a creature that was not given morality. We’d be asking God to “undefine” us. Remember, even with the punishment, most don’t understand the accountability that comes with our extra gift. Let me put it another way. I’ll use the potential of all possibilities, with respect to all possible creations. The potential for a God to create everything is there. So, a Jellyfish, or, a rainbow colored one, or, a giant rainbow colored one. It’s possible a creature with perfect morality could have been created, no morality, some morality, and so on. So, it’s possible to create both a human that will be judged and one that will not be judged. The one that is to be judged can yell and scream “but why but why but why”, to which the answer would be “because, by definition, this is the definition of the thing created”. If it was said that a Lion was to eat antelope, then that is the case. If it was said a Lion was to eat jellybeans only, then that is the case. It’s what was defined. —- If I promote you to CEO but give you none of the powers of a CEO, then I did not make you a CEO. So, we know we were given morality. Why should the definition not be complete with inevitable judgement? We’d be asking to be redefined.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    The accountability aspect itself is equally inconsistent. The accountability is typically regarded as if it were a "punishment". However, the point of punishment is to teach. Touch the stove and mommy smacks your hand - It's meant to be a small pain to prevent a bigger pain. What then is the point of the sort of eternal punishment that's usually implied by this worldview? What can possibly be learned from that sort of punishment? What larger pain does it prevent? It becomes obvious that what we're considering isn't punishment, or even accountability, at all. It's torture.
    - ivape 1y ago
      Well, now we enter the magical explanation. There is a place that is perfect, and it requires perfect understanding. If one cannot even understand how thieving harms the world, then they can’t be good in a nice place like that. Plus it’s eternal, so imagine not understanding an eternal place and why even one flaw would last for eternity in a place like that. It’s not something anyone will consider until the last few days of their lives. The very last few moments and seconds. You can’t walk in dirty to a pristine palace, not because you are dirty and bad, but because such a place is to be clean, for eternity. That requires an other worldly level of solidarity, which would take a lifetime for humans, who cannot even feed and house all their brothers and sisters in this world right here, to understand. Of course, God can just make it all so, but then our creation can just be done away with. We were defined in a very specific way, the same way Angels are defined to be perfect. We were not to be that. The same way a Lion was to never consider what we are talking about here. —— Which brings me to my final point. I am God of my codebase. A function that I give life to cannot, ever, sit around and lament “why oh why, I lowly Fibonacci function, must compute Fibonacci numbers forever?”. Because I fucking said so. Arrogance at the possibility of God in the exact way I’m describing is just something a human will have to deal with. Many are confident in that arrogance. That’s about all we can say. I can delete any function from my codebase, but I have mercy. Catch my drift?
- jacquesm 1y ago
  I always saw it as a mind-hack by the powers that be: by declaring everybody is a sinner simply by virtue of being born as the progeny of other sinners you start off with your life in the balance and only the church can absolve you. That's just high pressure sales for a service that you might otherwise find you can do perfectly without.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    After watching my wife play Animal Crossing during the pandemic I've started to think of it as the "Tom Nook" method. "Welcome to the island. BTW - You owe me a zillion dollars just for existing."
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      And yet, Tom Nook is way kinder than his real-world equivalents. (He doesn't even charge interest!)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 1y ago
  >Fundamentally it's a way to make God seem like less of a child-abusing jerk. A sky-daddy who "punishes" those who understand morality, but grants slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies is just nicer for people to believe in. I think this is far too modernist an interpretation. When Genesis was written the characterization of God wouldn't have been interpreted as a "child-abusing jerk." God's behavior reflected what was expected of a father and a king given the culture and morals of the time, as well as the cold and indifferent brutality of the natural world, and was little different in those regards to other sky-father gods. Bear in mind this same God doesn't "grant slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies" either, at all. People sacrificed animals to God and God engaged in infanticide more than once.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    All very fair. My interpretation is intentionally quit modern. To be honest, trying to interpret the original authors intent has driven better men than me completely crazy. The Jewish and Christian interpretations, for example, are pretty clearly at odds with one another as are the modern and early Christian understandings.
throw0101a 1y ago
> […] By all definitions of an animal, nothing a human does is immoral. > So why are we immoral then? On what do you base the idea that morality exists? (If you reject the supernatural.) If there is nothing more but the natural world, then what does it matter how the molecules that make it up are arrange (or act)? Why should one arrangement of molecules be determined to be better or good(er) than another? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue
nachox999 1y ago
Why are we immoral then? You said it, because we're not just animals. We think, we are humans.
qznc 1y ago
… TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET - Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME…SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED. ‘Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point -’ MY POINT EXACTLY. From Hogfather, Terry Pratchett

by ivape 1y ago

mapontosevenths 1y ago

> So why are we immoral then? Mostly because it's easier than the alternative. More seriously, you've just described the "moral" of the story of Adam and Eve. In that view of the world our problem is that we understand morality (thanks to that apple eating strumpet) and therefore can make choices. Animals, infants, and the simple-minded have no such concept and therefore can't be held responsible for violating it. This, of course, all nonsense and implies a sort of paternalistic universe, but it was always going to be that way. Everything we know is defined by it's relationship to something else we know, and we don't know God. We know Dad. Fundamentally it's a way to make God seem like less of a child-abusing jerk. A sky-daddy who "punishes" those who understand morality, but grants slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies is just nicer for people to believe in.

ivape 1y ago
Let’s take God’s punishment unto man from the events of Eden for a moment. If you don’t hold a creature given morality accountable, then that creature is fundamentally the same as a creature that was not given morality. We’d be asking God to “undefine” us. Remember, even with the punishment, most don’t understand the accountability that comes with our extra gift. Let me put it another way. I’ll use the potential of all possibilities, with respect to all possible creations. The potential for a God to create everything is there. So, a Jellyfish, or, a rainbow colored one, or, a giant rainbow colored one. It’s possible a creature with perfect morality could have been created, no morality, some morality, and so on. So, it’s possible to create both a human that will be judged and one that will not be judged. The one that is to be judged can yell and scream “but why but why but why”, to which the answer would be “because, by definition, this is the definition of the thing created”. If it was said that a Lion was to eat antelope, then that is the case. If it was said a Lion was to eat jellybeans only, then that is the case. It’s what was defined. —- If I promote you to CEO but give you none of the powers of a CEO, then I did not make you a CEO. So, we know we were given morality. Why should the definition not be complete with inevitable judgement? We’d be asking to be redefined.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  The accountability aspect itself is equally inconsistent. The accountability is typically regarded as if it were a "punishment". However, the point of punishment is to teach. Touch the stove and mommy smacks your hand - It's meant to be a small pain to prevent a bigger pain. What then is the point of the sort of eternal punishment that's usually implied by this worldview? What can possibly be learned from that sort of punishment? What larger pain does it prevent? It becomes obvious that what we're considering isn't punishment, or even accountability, at all. It's torture.
  - ivape 1y ago
    Well, now we enter the magical explanation. There is a place that is perfect, and it requires perfect understanding. If one cannot even understand how thieving harms the world, then they can’t be good in a nice place like that. Plus it’s eternal, so imagine not understanding an eternal place and why even one flaw would last for eternity in a place like that. It’s not something anyone will consider until the last few days of their lives. The very last few moments and seconds. You can’t walk in dirty to a pristine palace, not because you are dirty and bad, but because such a place is to be clean, for eternity. That requires an other worldly level of solidarity, which would take a lifetime for humans, who cannot even feed and house all their brothers and sisters in this world right here, to understand. Of course, God can just make it all so, but then our creation can just be done away with. We were defined in a very specific way, the same way Angels are defined to be perfect. We were not to be that. The same way a Lion was to never consider what we are talking about here. —— Which brings me to my final point. I am God of my codebase. A function that I give life to cannot, ever, sit around and lament “why oh why, I lowly Fibonacci function, must compute Fibonacci numbers forever?”. Because I fucking said so. Arrogance at the possibility of God in the exact way I’m describing is just something a human will have to deal with. Many are confident in that arrogance. That’s about all we can say. I can delete any function from my codebase, but I have mercy. Catch my drift?
jacquesm 1y ago
I always saw it as a mind-hack by the powers that be: by declaring everybody is a sinner simply by virtue of being born as the progeny of other sinners you start off with your life in the balance and only the church can absolve you. That's just high pressure sales for a service that you might otherwise find you can do perfectly without.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  After watching my wife play Animal Crossing during the pandemic I've started to think of it as the "Tom Nook" method. "Welcome to the island. BTW - You owe me a zillion dollars just for existing."
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    And yet, Tom Nook is way kinder than his real-world equivalents. (He doesn't even charge interest!)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
krapp 1y ago
>Fundamentally it's a way to make God seem like less of a child-abusing jerk. A sky-daddy who "punishes" those who understand morality, but grants slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies is just nicer for people to believe in. I think this is far too modernist an interpretation. When Genesis was written the characterization of God wouldn't have been interpreted as a "child-abusing jerk." God's behavior reflected what was expected of a father and a king given the culture and morals of the time, as well as the cold and indifferent brutality of the natural world, and was little different in those regards to other sky-father gods. Bear in mind this same God doesn't "grant slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies" either, at all. People sacrificed animals to God and God engaged in infanticide more than once.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  All very fair. My interpretation is intentionally quit modern. To be honest, trying to interpret the original authors intent has driven better men than me completely crazy. The Jewish and Christian interpretations, for example, are pretty clearly at odds with one another as are the modern and early Christian understandings.

throw0101a 1y ago

> […] By all definitions of an animal, nothing a human does is immoral. > So why are we immoral then? On what do you base the idea that morality exists? (If you reject the supernatural.) If there is nothing more but the natural world, then what does it matter how the molecules that make it up are arrange (or act)? Why should one arrangement of molecules be determined to be better or good(er) than another? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue

nachox999 1y ago

Why are we immoral then? You said it, because we're not just animals. We think, we are humans.

qznc 1y ago

… TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET - Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME…SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED. ‘Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point -’ MY POINT EXACTLY. From Hogfather, Terry Pratchett