I'm not kidding myself.

You really sat your kids down and said "You really shouldn't shoot people for fun."? Was there something they did to make you do this?

Regardless, that sounds more like rational advice than a "belief."

Shooting people for fun will likely get you arrested, and cause you lots of stress trying not to be arrested. It will also engender a generally negative culture which could eventually get you killed for fun. More important, that one would have "fun" shooting people indicates a psychological problem that could lead to other behaviors that would have a negative impact on the individual, other individuals, and the functioning of society in general.

Should one shoot or kill people as punishment? In self-defense? As a military action? Maybe you're the one making neat little packages. I never said or even implied life is simple.

Generally, I try to stay away from using "right" or "wrong" as absolutes. Such concepts do absolutely nothing to encourage or prevent what are considered "right" and "wrong" anyway.

I think the problem here is that I'm using the word "belief" too narrowly and many cellarites are using it too generally. I still think that the essence of the word "belief" relates to emotional convictions rather than rational thought, and that the former has caused more problems in the world than the latter.:neutral:

There are lots of ways to pass on beliefs that don't require a lecture.

One man's rational advice is another person's belief and vice versa. That's the problem and that's where I think you are fooling yourself. Life is never going to break down into the nice tidy pigeonholes that you seem to want it to. It's why two very rational and very logical people can still disagree on major issues.

When you imply that all of life should be handled "rationally", then you are trying to make life simpler than it really is.
Doing the rational thing is not always the right thing.

If you use only rationality as a measure, then people would follow the current legal standards and whatever their peers would applaud. So, assuming you are white, then not allowing blacks into your store in the 1940s would be completely rational. It's what the law expects and your peers applaud. In fact, if you did allow blacks into your white store, you would lose the business of your, wealthier, white patrons.

That doesn't make it right.

I DO say I'm not sure but "I believe". I tell my son the truth and will continue to.
Those who do not deserve what they get.

I disagree. There are major, intrinsic differences between rationality and belief.


Why do you keep thinking that I'm trying to make "nice tidy pigeonholes?"

Quite the opposite. It's beliefs and belief systems that try to make life simpler than it really is. "The earth is flat." "The sun revolves around the earth." "God is all-powerful and omnicient." "The Bible is infallible." That's the main purpose of beliefs; to try and explain things you can't explain.

I already told you I don't use "right" or "wrong" as absolutes. By using the term as above, you presuppose there is such a thing as "the right thing."

They would? Wasn't (and isn't) the struggle for Civil Rights about NOT following current legal standards and going against your peers? People had to break laws to change them to a more rational view. It was irrational to segregate humans based upon race. Segregation's irrationality is what allowed it to be attacked in the first place. You have it all backwards.


You couldn't be more wrong about rationality being some kind of cop out. Being a rationalist is a very hard and difficult way to be, but it's the most honest. We are few when compared to all the believers in the world. All their beliefs give them comfort in what is, essentially, a meaningless void filled with chunks of matter. They invoke a "God" that they are told "loves" them. They conjure the idea of "heaven" where they will reside after they die. They speak of their "souls" and what's in their "heart," as if that was not the pump that circulates their blood but some metaphysical entity that defines who they are.

No. If I wanted life to be easier, I would certainly have "beliefs." I wouldn't have to tell girlfriends a month or so into the relationship that "No. I don't believe in love," and watch them cringe in disappointment at my honesty. It's hard to find women who are rationalists. All the ones I've known had kids and became soccer moms. When these kinds of women have kids they usually get all soft intellectually. Some hormones must change them from witty, smart, critical thinkers into malleable and maudlin mush.

Rationalists like me are slandered, shunned, and called names. They are told by others that "You want to have it easy." They have to live in a world made up mostly of people that believe in superstitions, are suspicious of you if you actually state that you don't believe in God, and get mad if you point out their irrationality. What's worse, I've run into people at parties who say, after I tell them my view of reality, that they "feel sorry for me." How condescending. I would not mind empathy, but please, don't feel "sorry" for me. I feel sorry for them, but I have the manners to hold my tongue (that's what I like about the Cellar; I can say what I want).

One of the most difficult things about living the rational life relates to making choices and decisions. I think the worst advice anybody could give is telling you to "do what you feel in your heart." How meaningless. When people start making decisions this way, it's usually the wrong one. Women choose to stay with abusive men; men stay with boring, emotionally suffocating women; etc.

Besides, primates are not monogamous, so this whole notion of the permanent, fidelitous relationship goes against all our instincts (at least in our reproductive years). We have these big brains that can help us understand our instinctual controls and determine and guide rational behavior in light of them, but we let our emotions rule. Then when the divorce or breakup comes, we have to find blame in ourselves or others, rather than realize it's completely natural to have many relationships over time. We should make the ones we have as good as we can for as long as they last, not promise to "love" each other till "death do we part." We are caught in the evolutionary trap of being instinctually tribal but culturally reclusive (nuclear family).

Why is it irrational to segregate humans based upon race? I'm a white guy in the 1940s. I benefit from it.

You're still fooling yourself. The philosophy that all men are equal is a belief. You can call it a principle if you like, but you believe in the principle.

Act 4
 

As I pointed out before, the application of the Categorical Imperative is the basis for making "rational" decisions. The irrationality in segregation relates to the "overall" impact to human society, which can be shown to be negative, not just for those discriminated against, but for everyone. It is self evident that all men are NOT created equal; that is a rational statement. I don't "believe" in principles, I follow them and advocate them based upon their proven outcome. One can act upon a principle, while beliefs can only remain just that. You have it backwards again. I would reverse your statement and say "You can call it a belief if you like, but if you take actions based upon a belief, and it results in a positive outcome for society, it becomes a rational truth." The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

You said before that "Doing the rational thing is not always the right thing." Rationality does not involve morality (right & wrong), and although Kant did relate morality to actions, he asserted that only those maxims you'd be willing for everyone (not just yourself) to act were morally acceptable; it is always based on the net benefit to all.

There are to many examples of such actions to cite here. Some have argued that mercy killing is morally wrong, but others (including those being killed) see it as a very rational act. The one's who think otherwise are burdened with "beliefs."

Your children look to you for what to believe. When they reach an age that they start forming their own beliefs based on their own experiences, they will critically examine the beliefs you taught them and draw their own conclusions.

Until then, if you don't teach your children "what to believe", someone else will. Your kids are bombarded every day with messages about what they should believe. What good are you doing if you eliminate parental input? Is it somehow healthier for your kids to get their worldview from the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon than from your own example/advice? I think not.

Teach them critical judgement and empathy. All else follows from that, the Golden Rule included.

That's great, starting around the age of 7. But a 2-year-old is not capable of that. His world consists of doing things for no other reason than because someone (hopefully a parent) said so; belief in their higher power if you will. You can fill in the whys and the rationality behind it down the road, but if you haven't instilled a framework of behavior long before then, you'll never get the opportunity.

Framework
 

Just make sure it's a rational framework.:neutral:

No, as a two-year-old, I was asked to consider other people's feelings. See here:

Let's try it again, Pangloss. Without reference to "right", "wrong", or morals -- why should the individual give up something for the greater good of everyone?

Why?
 

To make for a better society. It's the idea of doing something because you don't have to, hoping that someone might do something for you some day. It takes a lot of conscience raising to get to that point

It sounds like you might be one of those Ayn Rand Libertatians. Is that true?:eek:

I can't say more than I've said, and I'm not going to change any minds, especially those with kids. Just think about the debate, the ideas, and maybe we can all get somthing out of it.:neutral:

My son was perfectly capable of empathy and self sacrifice at two. I have never taught him of a higher power, what is right and doing for others what you would want them to do for you is more than enough, and has been for billions of Buddhists all over the world.

Herbie Hancock
 

I saw Herbie Hancock on CSPAN the other night. He's a Buddhist.:)

I have to say I like his old stuff better than his 80s 90s stuff, but he's a good keyboardist.


So, rkzen, would you say that "The Golden Rule" is a parallel concept to a tenet/s of Buddhism?:neutral: