Why must harm be bad?

[Huzington]

First, I do suggets you read this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61473) post.

Second, I do not believe as true any of the claims which follow. They are just the logical consequences of supposing the veracity of man's chief claim (that truth is good). And it is the nature of man to believe in the veracity of the "truth=good" equation. For man unconsciously places truth above all other things.

Just as it is the nature of man to feel sexual pleasure, so it is the nature of man to feel pain.

Truth is good. Each man and woman, even if he is dull, values truth more than anything else. It is man's true nature to feel pain and to feel pleasure. Therefore, feeling pain and feeling pleasure are good.

Unfortunately, it is man's propensity to entwine that which he dislikes with that which is immoral.

If someone taste a most disgusting vegetable, he does not say of it, "It is immoral."

If someone fall down and break his leg, he does not say of that event, "It is immoral."

In these instances man does not and cannot confuse dislike with immorality.

But for some mysterious reason, man loses his rationality and confuses "harm" with "bad".

Yet, as I have proven before, man places truth above morals, above goodness and badness.

And it is man's true nature to feel pain.

If truth be more important than "badness", as man unconsciously believes, then it follows that man's pain is good, because it is true, because it is real.

Truth is good. Reality is good. Why? Not because I said so, but because man said so.

Thoughts? Criticism?

[MattS]

Well, my simple mind has a hard time following your argument, but let me address your simplistic examples.

It is true that it is natural for man(kind) to feel pain - it happens all of the time. Pain and physical/emotional damage can actually be constructive, in moderation. "No pain no gain" has a lot of truth behind it. But it is the willful actions of one person that causes pain/harm in another that I think most people deem "bad". Obviously we can't judge an accidental fall that causes a broken leg, but if someone else pushed that person, and the broken leg caused significant loss of income or quality of life, then we can reasonably argue about the morality of the pusher's actions.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Yes, we value truth. But do we value truth as an end in itself (and, if so, as the only end in itself) or as a means?

Truth has great value as a means. No matter what one wants, it is easier to obtain it -- and to obtain it efficiently -- to the degree that one has a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the means to that end.

[Phrasology borrowed from bd-from-kg].

But there is no valid argument to be made to the effect of, "Truth has value as a means, therefore truth has value as an end in itself." And there is even less validity to move from this to the conclusion that "Truth is the only thing that has value as an end in itself."

Humans always will have a number of competing ends to contend with -- that is how we are made. A desire for pleasure, an aversion for pain, a desire for sex, a desire for companionship, and aversion to the smell of rotting flesh. Some desires are learned, others are given to us by nature. But we are not, nor are we ever likely to become, creatures who value only one thing -- be it life or truth or pleasure or happiness.

[abe smith]

Huzington says (end OP, 29 aug) "Truth is good. Reality is good. Why? Not because I said so, but because man [[ sic]] said so."

You are entitled to "be" a "Platonist" if you want to, Huzington; and thus to bring on-stage those befeathered and sequined dancing girls *Truth*, *Reality*, and (small-m) *man*.
Some of us here, tho, are going to pull down the Ol' French Eyelid in response to those. (That wonderful guy in the *Femme Du Boulanger.*)
Unless you have a specific human male individual in mind, Person (What is that "man"'s name and DOB?), there isn't any "man". And there isn't any abstract Platonic entity "Truth"; and there isn't any abstract Platonic entity "Reality".
To be sure, you (the specific entity Huzington) are free to deny my assertion. So?

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Yes, we value truth. But do we value truth as an end in itself (and, if so, as the only end in itself) or as a means?

Truth has great value as a means. No matter what one wants, it is easier to obtain it -- and to obtain it efficiently -- to the degree that one has a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the means to that end.

[Phrasology borrowed from bd-from-kg].

But there is no valid argument to be made to the effect of, "Truth has value as a means, therefore truth has value as an end in itself." And there is even less validity to move from this to the conclusion that "Truth is the only thing that has value as an end in itself."

Humans always will have a number of competing ends to contend with -- that is how we are made. A desire for pleasure, an aversion for pain, a desire for sex, a desire for companionship, and aversion to the smell of rotting flesh. Some desires are learned, others are given to us by nature. But we are not, nor are we ever likely to become, creatures who value only one thing -- be it life or truth or pleasure or happiness.

Man unconciously considers truth an end in itself.

Please read my Morality of Truth post which proves this. Everything is only meaningful to man insofar as he thinks it true, thinks it real.

[Huzington]

It is true that it is natural for man(kind) to feel pain [/B]

I meant "man", not "mankind".

I am only responding to this trivial part of your message because I shall later respond to the rest.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by abe smith
Huzington says (end OP, 29 aug) "Truth is good. Reality is good. Why? Not because I said so, but because man [[ sic]] said so."

Why is "but because man said so" gramatically incorrect?

Some of us here, tho, [sic] are going to pull down the Ol' French Eyelid in response to those. (That wonderful guy in the *Femme Du Boulanger.*)

What is the "French Eyelid"?

Unless you have a specific human male individual in mind, Person (What is that "man"'s name and DOB?), there isn't any "man". And there isn't any abstract Platonic entity "Truth"; and there isn't any abstract Platonic entity "Reality".
To be sure, you (the specific entity Huzington) are free to deny my assertion. So?

First: By "man" is here meant the human race.

Second: I am speaking of the very constitution of man's mind. He cannot place anything above truth. This is not an abstraction. It is his mind in its objective reality. It is his mind in its materialised actuality. That is to say, it is not some abstract, absolute mind floating about in the heavens.

Third: I am not an Idealist like Plato. I am by no means a Platonist. I am only repeating what all mankind believe unconsciously and cannot avoid believing: that Truth is the highest good. I do not myself believe this -- consciously. Consciously, I think it to be absolutely false.

[Keith Russell]

Huzington said:
And it is man's true nature to feel pain.

You may have had a hard, painful life--

--but, I haven't.

It's not my true nature to feel pain. I am rarely in pain. (And I keep aspirin both at home and at the office.) I don't what evidence upon which you based your statement, but I imagine your evidence was rather sketchy--if not based on your personal experience alone...

K

[jafosei]

Man unconciously considers truth an end in itself.
Please read my Morality of Truth post which proves this. Everything is only meaningful to man insofar as he thinks it true, thinks it real.

Unfortunately, your Morality of Truth post doesn't prove anything. You said so yourself:

I am going to assert, with no evidence whatever, that what is right and what is wrong is what is true and what is false respectively. There is just as much evidence for this as there is for any morality.

If I read this all correctly, you've basically asserted that everyone believes something, whether they know it or not, because you've defined the process so that it's only possible for people to really believe what you say they believe. In other words, you have established a tautology through definition. I'm not sure how that's helpful.

We will no longer have to inquire, Is X a moral act? The only question would be, Is X true?

This is from your previous post. Despite what you've said, you're still asking the same question, you've just redefined the words that you use to ask the question. Unless I greatly misunderstand, you've just added an additional layer of abstraction onto the process.

As for the comments about pain: pain is an indicator of injury. It's good to feel pain when you are injured, so that you can deal appropriately with the injury. If you didn't feel pain when you were injured, you could die, as you might not notice the injury otherwise and wouldn't be able to take appropriate steps to remedy. In that sense, pain is good. That doesn't make it good to cause injury or pain to others, nor does it make pain something to be sought out.

[abe smith]

I assert that you, *one guy*, are NOT competent to assert anything about what "man"= "humankind" feel/feels. Anyone (you) who asserts such pretty generalizations as "Truth" and "Mankind" and such terms is a Platonist according to my totally-individualistic set of words.
Whatever gave you the idea that you know what any of the rest of us thinks? What are your credentials?
When I "sic"ed your use of "man", I was not faulting your grammar; I was faulting your presumption in speaking for everybody else. Speak for yourself, "John".