And if you're really, really lucky you pair program with them. Then you get to watch them make mistakes like everyone else, and they get to explain how they write good code - the thought process they go thru, how they remove duplication, etc.
It's not "my code" in the sense that I invented it, though. I didn't invent it, nor can I change it. Rather freeing, actually.
> How many of those people fought for > what they thought was right
Thinking it's right doesn't make it so...
> I'll be labelled a Nazi next
Yeah, I know, it's hard to do this Socratic dialog thing without occasionally appearing to advocate some foulness. Such are the dangers of dialog.
I think everyone else has gone home already, though:-)
> I feel that racism is bad
Me too. Is that just a feeling, or is it really bad? Or can we even make statements like "foo is really bad"?
> sorry if that sounded like an attack on America
America has sinners just like any other country, no doubt about that.
> I can enquire [...] can I truly take their word for it?
Kind of a fuzzy area here, isn't it? I mean, I hardly know what I want for breakfast in the morning... if someone were to ask me "what's the moral view of America" I'm not sure I could give them an intelligent answer. And whatever answer I gave would be heavily influenced by growing up as a preacher's son, marrying a foreign national, etc., etc.
> would one still require head to toe covering?
Only if that were what was considered modest. If wearing a grass skirt was considered modest, that'd be the thing to do.
There's a verse that talks about "If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.". Same dealio.
> Microsoft had a team of no less than a > hundred programmers working full-time for > two years to produce Exchange server 2000. > Logic would dictate that the Open Source > community would need to do the same, > with the same amount of resources
Exchange isn't a building. Those programmers weren't bending sheet metal and pouring concrete.
Here's one hundred programmers working for two years:
> a moral code is a social thing >... > individuals are influenced by those around them
Well, there's "socially acceptable" and then there's "that which is right". These are sometimes aligned, and sometimes not [Germany 1937, etc.].
> it was considered immoral to marry > someone of a different race than onesself
Yup, some folks considered (and some folks now consider) interracial marriage immoral. America has no monopoly on this sort of thing, of course - in India, today, the caste system forbids marriages between those of the same race but different classes.
So, can we say "racism is wrong"? And if so, how do we justify saying that - what yardstick do we use to measure right and wrong?
> the observed morality of society > has indeed changed
True. The _observed_ morality of society has certainly changed.
But why did Victorian England women fear to show their ankles? Because it was considered immodest. People today still recognize the virtue of modesty - I mean, people wear clothes when they go outside. So there's an underlying current of "being modest is good" that's common across that span of time.
You're right, I hadn't thought about that one enough. As the linked article says, "F=ma" isn't a tautology. So let's see:
> Only the societies with useful > moral codes survive
For some reason this bugs me... I don't know. Something about referring to a moral code as "useful". Sounds a bit Machiavellian - as if any moral code that resulted in the survival of the society was good. Although now we're back to defining "good", and it seems we're at "that which prolongs a society".
Doesn't that mean we can do anything we want and call it good? Especially if we can define society as "those of my set" or "those folks who agree with me"?
> most common that comes up is > "a desirable outcome"
Hm... yup, m-w.com says "of a favorable character". Same thing, pretty much.
> I would expect that "good" is > "desirable outcomes for the > individual and the society in > which that individual resides". >... > Do you disagree ?
The problem, though, is that a "desirable outcome" for one person is not necessarily desirable for another - i.e., what was desirable for the Nazis was not desirable for the Jews. I think this idea is called moral relativism, although I'm not sure. But you see the point.
> it's not the moral codes which survive, > it's the societies which employ useful ones
I agree that some societies survive better than others, and I agree with your examples.
> The distinction between your stance and > mine, is that I can revise mine.
That's precisely the point we are working on, I think. Can we change what is right and wrong as we see fit? If I decided that mentally handicapped people were not fit to live, would I be right?
> If your faith does not match the > evidence, what do you do ?
Yes, that's a definition of a moral code - but how do we differentiate between different moral codes? What makes that moral code different from "I want what I want when I want it"?
> Someone with the desire to kill > others will still do it, religion or not.
True enough.
> because they recognize that life is special
When you assert that "life is special", aren't you appealing to a universal moral code? From what is that moral code derived? Did we just make it up, and if so, what's the difference between "life is special" and "life is meaningless"?
> Shall we start by defining "good" > in that sentence ?
Exactly. I feel you've hit upon the crux of the matter there - how in fact do we define "good"? Is it what the most people think at a given moment? Is it who has the most power? Is it what I think at a given moment?
> Only the societies with useful > moral codes survive
That's a bit circular too - a useful moral code is one that survives, and a moral code that survives is useful:-)
> Or maybe God is sitting up there > laughing at us.
> This shows that the "God" Hitler > was referencing was not the God of the Bible
Well said indeed.
Actually, I'm sort of regretting posting a Hitler quote in the first place... he was such a habitual liar that anything he said or wrote is almost by definition useless.
> People did all the writing of > the religious documents
Yup. But they claimed that what they were writing was inspired by God. Was it? If not, the writings are perhaps interesting, but significant. If so, though....
> What's the point of insisting that > some superbeing endorses it all?
I certainly agree that without God, religious texts are not meaningful.
> If you think religion doesn't get "reinterpreted" > by people to serve their own ends, > then you're being very naive.
You're absolutely right, a religious text, like any other text/history/event, can be reinterpreted in various ways. Does that prevent us from examining the text - and the reinterpretation - and seeing if either are true?
> creating our own moral code that can be held > up to scrutiny
That's just the problem - if we make up a moral code, we can do whatever we want with it. So it changes with whoever has power, or is popular, or whatever.
> Get rid of religion and you > leave these evil bastards with > one less (very powerful) tool
Without God, can we make any determinations about good and evil?
Or I could be misunderstanding you.... are you considering "religion" to be a cultural thing; i.e., a separate issue from the question of whether or not God exists?
You're absolutely right, my mistake. Nazism is a variety of jumbled occultisms, and certainly not Christian by any stretch of the imagination, but it was not atheistic. Thanks for prompting some research.
> I personally feel he was a Christian > or at least purported to be one
To the contrary:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
> Because it makes it easier for people > to get along and not kill each other > so much if they aren't always bickering > over "my god can kick your god's ass!" > type stuff.
Atheistic regimes can be quite bloodthirsty - witness the USSR under Communism or Germany under Nazism.
Slashdot Mirror
> if you're really lucky they explain how
And if you're really, really lucky you pair program with them. Then you get to watch them make mistakes like everyone else, and they get to explain how they write good code - the thought process they go thru, how they remove duplication, etc.
> Isn't it your own moral code
:-)
It's not "my code" in the sense that I invented it, though. I didn't invent it, nor can I change it. Rather freeing, actually.
> How many of those people fought for
> what they thought was right
Thinking it's right doesn't make it so...
> I'll be labelled a Nazi next
Yeah, I know, it's hard to do this Socratic dialog thing without occasionally appearing to advocate some foulness. Such are the dangers of dialog.
I think everyone else has gone home already, though
> I feel that racism is bad
Me too. Is that just a feeling, or is it really bad? Or can we even make statements like "foo is really bad"?
> sorry if that sounded like an attack on America
America has sinners just like any other country, no doubt about that.
> I can enquire [...] can I truly take their word for it?
Kind of a fuzzy area here, isn't it? I mean, I hardly know what I want for breakfast in the morning... if someone were to ask me "what's the moral view of America" I'm not sure I could give them an intelligent answer. And whatever answer I gave would be heavily influenced by growing up as a preacher's son, marrying a foreign national, etc., etc.
> would one still require head to toe covering?
Only if that were what was considered modest. If wearing a grass skirt was considered modest, that'd be the thing to do.
There's a verse that talks about "If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.". Same dealio.
> Microsoft had a team of no less than a
> hundred programmers working full-time for
> two years to produce Exchange server 2000.
> Logic would dictate that the Open Source
> community would need to do the same,
> with the same amount of resources
Exchange isn't a building. Those programmers weren't bending sheet metal and pouring concrete.
Here's one hundred programmers working for two years:
import org.apache.james.*;
import org.apache.tomcat.*;
import org.apache.tools.ant.*;
Those construction metaphors only go so far.
> a moral code is a social thing ...
>
> individuals are influenced by those around them
Well, there's "socially acceptable" and then there's "that which is right". These are sometimes aligned, and sometimes not [Germany 1937, etc.].
> it was considered immoral to marry
> someone of a different race than onesself
Yup, some folks considered (and some folks now consider) interracial marriage immoral. America has no monopoly on this sort of thing, of course - in India, today, the caste system forbids marriages between those of the same race but different classes.
So, can we say "racism is wrong"? And if so, how do we justify saying that - what yardstick do we use to measure right and wrong?
> the observed morality of society
> has indeed changed
True. The _observed_ morality of society has certainly changed.
But why did Victorian England women fear to show their ankles? Because it was considered immodest. People today still recognize the virtue of modesty - I mean, people wear clothes when they go outside. So there's an underlying current of "being modest is good" that's common across that span of time.
You're right, I hadn't thought about that one enough. As the linked article says, "F=ma" isn't a tautology. So let's see:
> Only the societies with useful
> moral codes survive
For some reason this bugs me... I don't know. Something about referring to a moral code as "useful". Sounds a bit Machiavellian - as if any moral code that resulted in the survival of the society was good. Although now we're back to defining "good", and it seems we're at "that which prolongs a society".
Doesn't that mean we can do anything we want and call it good? Especially if we can define society as "those of my set" or "those folks who agree with me"?
> most common that comes up is
...
> "a desirable outcome"
Hm... yup, m-w.com says "of a favorable character". Same thing, pretty much.
> I would expect that "good" is
> "desirable outcomes for the
> individual and the society in
> which that individual resides".
>
> Do you disagree ?
The problem, though, is that a "desirable outcome" for one person is not necessarily desirable for another - i.e., what was desirable for the Nazis was not desirable for the Jews. I think this idea is called moral relativism, although I'm not sure. But you see the point.
> it's not the moral codes which survive,
> it's the societies which employ useful ones
I agree that some societies survive better than others, and I agree with your examples.
> The distinction between your stance and
> mine, is that I can revise mine.
That's precisely the point we are working on, I think. Can we change what is right and wrong as we see fit? If I decided that mentally handicapped people were not fit to live, would I be right?
> If your faith does not match the
> evidence, what do you do ?
Examine both, I hope.
> Communty == Morons
The "irony" thread was yesterday's topic.
> That is almost certain
Right, it's difficult to assert exactly what the first man was like. There are certainly a wide range of opinions on that.
> We created it, and we did that
> . through our experiences. Hence,
> experience defines morality.
Would you say the same of mathematics? Did we create algebra? Or was it always there?
> mankind as a whole decided that it was wrong
But a bunch of Germans thought it was OK... did that make it right? Why not?
> God is an artificial theological construct
I believe that you believe that.
> it [God] has no physical properties
Does love have physical properties? Does love exist?
> pain and pleasure define our
> experiences, and thus, our morality
Do our experiences define our morality, or vice versa?
> To me, someone with morals is
Yes, that's a definition of a moral code - but how do we differentiate between different moral codes? What makes that moral code different from "I want what I want when I want it"?
> Someone with the desire to kill
> others will still do it, religion or not.
True enough.
> because they recognize that life is special
When you assert that "life is special", aren't you appealing to a universal moral code? From what is that moral code derived? Did we just make it up, and if so, what's the difference between "life is special" and "life is meaningless"?
> all men are created equal
When you state that, aren't you appealing to a universal law?
> it has been man who has decided
> what is good, and what is evil
Doesn't that imply that Hitler and, say, Mother Teresa are morally equivalent?
> To believe otherwise is to depreciate
> the power of man
Exactly right. To depreciate the power of man and acknowledge the power of God.
> Shall we start by defining "good"
:-)
> in that sentence ?
Exactly. I feel you've hit upon the crux of the matter there - how in fact do we define "good"? Is it what the most people think at a given moment? Is it who has the most power? Is it what I think at a given moment?
> Only the societies with useful
> moral codes survive
That's a bit circular too - a useful moral code is one that survives, and a moral code that survives is useful
> Or maybe God is sitting up there
> laughing at us.
Or weeping.
> This shows that the "God" Hitler
> was referencing was not the God of the Bible
Well said indeed.
Actually, I'm sort of regretting posting a Hitler quote in the first place... he was such a habitual liar that anything he said or wrote is almost by definition useless.
> more people have been killed over
> religion than anything else
Kind of a conundrum though.... when we say that "killing people is wrong" we invoke a moral law. From what do we derive that law?
> People did all the writing of
> the religious documents
Yup. But they claimed that what they were writing was inspired by God. Was it? If not, the writings are perhaps interesting, but significant. If so, though....
> What's the point of insisting that
> some superbeing endorses it all?
I certainly agree that without God, religious texts are not meaningful.
> If you think religion doesn't get "reinterpreted"
> by people to serve their own ends,
> then you're being very naive.
You're absolutely right, a religious text, like any other text/history/event, can be reinterpreted in various ways. Does that prevent us from examining the text - and the reinterpretation - and seeing if either are true?
> That's the way it is now with religion anyway
Religions usually make specific claims - "there's a heaven and hell", "we're all Gods", "there is no God", etc.
These claims can be true or false, but they can't be changed without invalidating the religion.
> it was designed by man and is fallable
Exactly, and so it could be changed at will - it would be more of a weathervane than a moral code.
> creating our own moral code that can be held
> up to scrutiny
That's just the problem - if we make up a moral code, we can do whatever we want with it. So it changes with whoever has power, or is popular, or whatever.
> Useful for the
> preservation and advancement of
> individuals and the society
> in which they live
Why is that definition "good" any better than a definition like "that which I think will make me happy right now"?
That just gets us back to "how do we determine what's good?".
> There are moral codes which do not
> require a God to impart them.
Right, anyone can invent a moral code. But what good does it do to invent one?
> Get rid of religion and you
> leave these evil bastards with
> one less (very powerful) tool
Without God, can we make any determinations about good and evil?
Or I could be misunderstanding you.... are you considering "religion" to be a cultural thing; i.e., a separate issue from the question of whether or not God exists?
> Nazi Germany was by no means atheistic.
You're absolutely right, my mistake. Nazism is a variety of jumbled occultisms, and certainly not Christian by any stretch of the imagination, but it was not atheistic. Thanks for prompting some research.
> I personally feel he was a Christian
> or at least purported to be one
To the contrary:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
> Because it makes it easier for people
> to get along and not kill each other
> so much if they aren't always bickering
> over "my god can kick your god's ass!"
> type stuff.
Atheistic regimes can be quite bloodthirsty - witness the USSR under Communism or Germany under Nazism.
> When the votes were being recounted,
:-)
> there was no President Bush, was there?
That recount sounded fairly chancy... lots of guessing going on. Blahh...
> just saw the opportunity to take a snipe
This political debate stuff is exhausting. I should stick to Java and the like