I think the principle we use is simply emotional reaction and reason. If something doesn't feel right or doesn't make logical sense, there's no reason to believe it, but no reason to discard the things that do feel right.
The major problem with this is that you are going to constantly be fighting human nature itself. From a purely biological POV, four major "behavioral flaws" can be demonstrated (in increasing order of strength):
"Subjectivity" - In general, our ability to respond to ANY situation, is only through the filter of our previous experiences. Trauma, both emotional and physical, can forever stain this filter, and prevent us from having any sort of coherent ability to know what "feels right". As a secondary-victim of childhood sexual abuse, I can tell you that I will never-ever be able to be "objective" about many issues even remotely related to sexuality, either because at some level I've been "programmed" to perceive them as "normal", or because I over-compensate in the opposite direction.
"Laziness" - Doing anything real, general takes actual effort. This means that animals, humans among them, will generally seek the path of least effort. This means they will be intrinsically inclined to rationalize avoiding doing things, even if, otherwise these things would "feel right".
"Self Gratification" - We are hard-wired such, that we derive varying levels of pleasure from activities such as eating and sexual intercourse, with a direct correlation to how important to survival they are, to both the individual "unit" and the species as a whole. We are quite literally [Endorphin] "junkies" for pleasure. So this too clouds our ability to know what "feels right", in this case because "feels good" can easily take precedence. As every guy knows "A stiff dick has no Conscience"...
"Self Preservation" - The Number #1 "motivator" for all living entities is to continue living, at practically any price. What happens when you conflict this with the mere "feels right"? It rather pales in comparison doesn't it? While the threat of actual death, is generally pretty rare, we often respond strongly to even the most tenuous threats, or potentially threatening situation (such as saving someone's life at personal risk). Do you think this won't impact your ability to know what "feels right"?
While this list bares some parallel to the Catholic list of Seven deadly sins - the first three matching: Anger-Pride, Slot and Gluttony-Lust, I am thinking of them in the sense of biological imperatives (and not "sin"), to show that your "barometer" is inherently incapable of working. I can't think of any biological imperatives that would even remotely match Avarice and Envy, the two that I'm "missing".
You further underestimate the flexibility of human "logic", to rationalize whatever we damn well please. I doubt there are many cultures in human history who were quite as rational, straitlaced and "logical" as the Germans. Yet it was precisely for this reason that they could, through "solid rational science" demonstrate that Jews and certain other minorities such as the Gypsies, were genetically inferior, and that logically, this called for their scientific extermination, to make room for the "superior races". While I DO highly value logic as a useful tool, it is extremely overrated.
This is precisely why Divine Revelation is needed to tell us how to behave. We have proved throughout history, that we are incapable of finding this out for ourselves.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Human barometers
Date: 2005-06-08 08:51 am (UTC)- "Subjectivity" - In general, our ability to respond to ANY situation, is only through the filter of our previous experiences. Trauma, both emotional and physical, can forever stain this filter, and prevent us from having any sort of coherent ability to know what "feels right". As a secondary-victim of childhood sexual abuse, I can tell you that I will never-ever be able to be "objective" about many issues even remotely related to sexuality, either because at some level I've been "programmed" to perceive them as "normal", or because I over-compensate in the opposite direction.
- "Laziness" - Doing anything real, general takes actual effort. This means that animals, humans among them, will generally seek the path of least effort. This means they will be intrinsically inclined to rationalize avoiding doing things, even if, otherwise these things would "feel right".
- "Self Gratification" - We are hard-wired such, that we derive varying levels of pleasure from activities such as eating and sexual intercourse, with a direct correlation to how important to survival they are, to both the individual "unit" and the species as a whole. We are quite literally [Endorphin] "junkies" for pleasure. So this too clouds our ability to know what "feels right", in this case because "feels good" can easily take precedence. As every guy knows "A stiff dick has no Conscience"...
- "Self Preservation" - The Number #1 "motivator" for all living entities is to continue living, at practically any price. What happens when you conflict this with the mere "feels right"? It rather pales in comparison doesn't it? While the threat of actual death, is generally pretty rare, we often respond strongly to even the most tenuous threats, or potentially threatening situation (such as saving someone's life at personal risk). Do you think this won't impact your ability to know what "feels right"?
While this list bares some parallel to the Catholic list of Seven deadly sins - the first three matching: Anger-Pride, Slot and Gluttony-Lust, I am thinking of them in the sense of biological imperatives (and not "sin"), to show that your "barometer" is inherently incapable of working. I can't think of any biological imperatives that would even remotely match Avarice and Envy, the two that I'm "missing".You further underestimate the flexibility of human "logic", to rationalize whatever we damn well please. I doubt there are many cultures in human history who were quite as rational, straitlaced and "logical" as the Germans. Yet it was precisely for this reason that they could, through "solid rational science" demonstrate that Jews and certain other minorities such as the Gypsies, were genetically inferior, and that logically, this called for their scientific extermination, to make room for the "superior races". While I DO highly value logic as a useful tool, it is extremely overrated.
This is precisely why Divine Revelation is needed to tell us how to behave. We have proved throughout history, that we are incapable of finding this out for ourselves.