Below are the 8 most recent journal entries recorded in rational_ethics' LiveJournal:

Sunday, June 27th, 2004
11:37 pm	The existance of good is contingent upon the posibility of evil. But only upon the possibility. To say that evil is nescesary for the existance of good is untrue and mis-leading - a cop-out designed to let us off from the nescesity of changing the world; we pretend to see that evil is an inevitable part of the world because what we realy see is that the elimination of evil requires a strength and effort which is beyond anything else we have experienced, and we fear that we may not be capable of achieving it - so we comne up with an excuse for giving up. Suffering is not nescesary for good to exist, but effort and will is. The kingdom of heaven is of course no such thing, it is a metaphor, like enlightenment, or transcendance, or even reincarnation: it is a misunderstood half memory of the understanding that has come to those who have enagaged in philosophical persuits that a state of mind can be reached from which a better level of understanding can be achieved - but that to reach said state of mind requires a change of mental basis which can only happen through a deep and disciplined examination of the world. Entry to heaven requires abiding by a certain set of rules - rules that control action, but far more importantly rules that control thought - not because some greater being is sitting and acting as judge, but because the state of grace requires a process of enlightenment through which one must go before it can be reached. This is not an arbitrary rule laid down by some vastly potent entity, but an intrinsic property of that state itself. Why does the world contain so much suffering? Because we have not yet removed it. Why must we live by such difficult rules? Because they are nescesary. "Because I say so" is no answer, no matter if the speaker is god. (5 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, May 10th, 2004
6:43 pm	Truth and Faith Truth in its natural state is wild and undivided, an ocean of possibility raging with uncontrolled storms. Faith is a barrier, a core of solid ground upon which an artifice of reason and logic may be built, but without which reason's tower will simply collapse and be washed clean by the boundless ocean of unconquered truth. Faith, however, as a boundary is also a weakness, a danger, and a restriction; for whilst faith permits the control of raw truth, it also restricts its access, denying forever the true depths of the ocean of existence. Without faith reason cannot function, but an excess of faith makes reason fruitless and grim. The path of the atheist is to deny faith, and that of the fundamentalist is to embrace it and in doing so destroy his own capacity for wonderment in the structure of being. The wise-man must steer a path between these two extremes, leaving the minimal possible platform of faith which will support his tower of reason, but forever risking that a disturbance at the foundation will undermine it, bringing the structure crumbling down under the force of the unstoppably and intrinsically real. Current Mood: contemplative (Comment on this)
Saturday, March 27th, 2004
10:23 pm	Well, its been a while. I've spent quite a while thinking about this, and here I have somthing I think will fit in as a definition of the word "God". As far as I can tell with the notes as listed below this is I think prety close to what most inteligent thrologians mean when they use the word ... maybe: Definition The term God refers to an entiy possessed of personality which: Cannot be adequately described with human language Is responsible for that peheninon known as gnosis Note: I think this fits quite well with most mystic and gnostic versons of he concept of god, including most charismatic chrisianity, Sufi Islam, the hindhu (or vedic) concept of Brahman (the universe), even the concept of the uncreated universe in certain secular faiths. It also seems to corespond to the noion of the nature of Ahriman and Uhura-Mazds as described in Mithraism, but not he equivalent concepts in raditional Zorroastrianism. Unfortunately it seems to fall flat for traditional Pagan religions (well no suprise there - he panheon structure of traditional pagan religions doesn't corespond to the all-encompassing godhead of later traditions), and rather more relevantly for traditional chrisianiy - that is he cannonical structures of Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christianity (although AFAICT every single major chrisian intelectual from St. Luke through to Teilhard duChardin has come very close to this form of gnosicism). In fact, the belief in this form of deiy, an all-encompassing god-head who can be understood only through direct experience has been considered the worst possible heresy since the vey earliest days of christianity - guess I'm an irredeamable heretic ;-p (7 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, January 16th, 2004
8:29 pm	Deception Deception, whether through direct untruth or omission of relevant facts has to be one of the most direct and intolerable breaches of trust which a human being is capable of performing. This activity undermines the very fabric of knowledge and prevents the spreading of information necessary in order to make informed decisions. In this way unless there is some direct and immediate way in which a deception can be shown to be the locally right action for some more direct reason it will always be inadvisable. Definition A Right is defined to be an action which a being may always be allowed to take, which no other being may ever prevent them from taking. The Rights of man, or lack thereof The definition of a Right is absurd. No such thing can possibly exist - the author maintains that any action can be prevented, and furthermore that under certain circumstances any individual action can be locally wrong. For this reason any person claiming that human beings have certain inalienable rights is being deceptive. Sometimes this may be done for honorable reasons, but the result is always the same - stagnation and a failure to think before acting descending from the belief that if a certain action has been declared a "right" then it will always be acceptable to make use of it. (5 Comments |Comment on this)
8:28 pm	Addiction Addiction is not in of itself harmful, but is a weekness which can cause incorect decisions to be made since it puts an extra irrestistable urge into the person's psyche. Damaging Drugs Any drugs harmful to the self are covered by the section on Damge to the self, as such it is not recommended that they be used (since damging oneself damages ones capability to function within society), but preventing another from doing them is a waste of time and effort. Drugs damaging to others on the other hand are covered by the stronger prohibition against damaging others. For this reason as long as the addiction is kept under control injected or oraly administered drugs are not nescesarily a problem. The author can see no circumstances under which the taking of narcotics via inhalation can ever be preferential to not doing so, the release of such substances into the air causes unintended harm to others to an extent which they can neither control nor avoid. Recreation It may seem that this philosophy is very austere and only allows actions intended to fulfill the ultimate goal. It should be remembered however that a human being's rationality and capability to function within society will be seriously decreased if that human being does not dedicate adequate time to recreation. Enjoyment and relaxation, including the presence of other human beings are nescesary parts of human behaviour. Possibly they are throw-backs to a more primitive period, but this is not relevant. The situation is that for the current level of human developement these things are required, and so should be continued for the better functioning of society. (Comment on this)
8:26 pm	to be inserted after the definition of cognition Remark This is the total of all knowledge possessed by such beings. The total amount of cognition is not increased by a second being becoming aware of the same knowledge which another already possesses Remark No satisfactory definition of meaningful information currently exists. I am working on it, but for now the intuitive concept can be used (This needs work). To be inserted after the section on Damage to the Individual Remark In the above any sort of damage to the individual which will reduce their capacity to engage in society is covered. This includes mental, physical, and social damage, as well most particularly as depriving them of knowledge (by failing to provide them with aditional knowledge which is possessed, but not by them). New material, to be added to the end Damage to the Self A being engaged in damaging themselves, whether physicaly, mentaly, socialy, or intelectualy is contributing less to the grand scheme of society than they would do otherwise. For this reason damaging oneself is inadvisable unless through said damage an overall improvement appears to be the likely result. However a being intent upon doing so cannot feasably be prevented from doing so without causing further damage to society - for this reason attempting to persuade such a person to stop their behaviour is the localy right action - but whilst actively preventing such behaviour may appear to be localy right in many cases it will in fact lead to greater harm. Circumstances Under Which the Damage of a "Lesser" Species is Advisable The damaging of a being less capable of increasing cognition than oneself is acceptable only if it is nescesary in order to increase cognition (since damaging such a creature reduces complexity and diversity, and hence the potential for future cognition). Damaging such a being in order to gain further knowledge is valid, damaging such a creature in order to survive is valid, damaging such a creature in order to ensure the survival of a society is valid. Damaging such a creature for pleasure or convienience is not. For this reason the eating of another creature is valid only if it is nescesary for healthy and functional survival. The modern human need not eat the flesh anything in the Animal Kingdom in order to survive healthily. By the same reasoning the slaughter of creatures less capable of cognition for the production of luxury goods is even less permissable. This includes both leather and silk. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
8:25 pm	Damage to the Individual Damage to the individual reduces their capacity to function within a society. If we believe (see above) that Human Society is worth preserving in order to minimise harm, then damage committed to the individual, reducing their functionality damages the society and hence causes harm. For this reason damage to a human being is to be avoided except where it leads to an overall reduction in harm. (Comment on this)
8:17 pm	I've spent a good deal of my life so far attempting to construct a set of ethics based upon a form of rational altruism. I've decided recently that attempting to fiormalise it is probably a good idea right now, so here is what I have so far - please feel free to comment - I garauntee you that I will not be offended by any comments or critiscisms made. If you see any flaws or (goddess forbid) inconsistancies please point them out, or if you want to suggest a topic for me to add to the list let me know. Disclaimer This document presuposes the existance of at least one sapient freewilled observer who experiences a series of sensations (a stream of sensory input) origionating from an objective external world, and can in turn affect that external world via some indirect means. However the author maintains that the results are essentialy identical whether this is true, or merely appears to be true. For this reason it is not essential that Free Will actualy exist, or even that the concept nescesarily makes sense. Definition We define Cognition to be the amount of knowledge (meaningful information) possessed by beings capable of inteligent thought. Definition We define an Action to be a change in the objective world caused by a choice made by a being capable of inteligent thought. Definition We refer to an action as causing harm if it eventualy reduces the amount of cognition in the universe. We refer to the action which causes least harm (ie. the ventual result is less reduction in cognition than any other action) as the right action in any situation. The Globaly right action is that action which causes least harm overall. The Localy right action is the action in any circumstance which appears to the best of the knowledge of the acting being to be the globaly right action at the current time. Human Survival The human race is the current species which most often appears to be the creature in our experience most capable of cognition. For this reason it is the localy right action to maintain the continued existance of the human race (since this will continue the existance of Human Knowledge, whicb is more important) as long as this does not interfere witha greater goal. For example it is not the correct action to refrain from creating a greater being because it may replace us ... if it is more capable of cognition then it is the localy right action to create it. The Survival of the Ecosystem The more diversity and complexity there is then the more meaningful knowledge can be gained regarding it. The reduction of complexity and diversity can only be justified if it increases the capacxity for cognition in some more direct means. Damaging a creature or ecosystem for knowledge is valid, although the damage should be kept to the minimum possible, damaging an ecosystem for economic gain is not unless the entire stability of the economy is at stake ... which it rarely is. I'll add some more later. (Comment on this)