The Inevitable Dossier
15 October, 2019
Server time: 14:36
 
The Dossier
Download it now!
Download statistics
Page hit statistics
Old statistics
Online reading
Sympathize
Corner Banner
Support / Donate
The Inevitable 'I'
Google Ads


Creeper
MediaCreeper
 
10. Appendix (10.1.7)
Written by Messiah   
Thursday, 06 July 2006

10.1.7    Important, correct, should and ought

If a gun aimed taking account of distance, wind, etc. misses the target, whereas the gun next door, aimed taking account also of the earth’s rotation, hits, it can reasonably but superficially be stated this was an ‘important’ factor and, under the defined circumstances, the second gun was ‘correctly’ aimed. In fact the aims of both guns were inevitable as is this comment on them. The words ‘important’ and ‘correct’ are simply part of an inevitable situation and would still be so if it were a moral and not an obviously mechanical one. It would be possible to programme a computer with a concept of morality and it could then ascribe ‘importance’ to an item in accordance with the programmed moral code as distinct from ascribing it according to a more obvious defined set of factors. This is what the human brain does with its moral and ethical codes but all are only movements of an, albeit complex, inevitably proceeding system and completely predictable if sufficient is known.

As mentioned before, human scientific thinking, expressed in written and spoken word on subjects such as Darwinism, Dominant Gene and other theories that man is machine, is confused. Scientists often use words such as ‘important, correct, must, should and ought’ in the same paragraph or breath as they say all human behaviour is determined by, for example, genes and that free choice does not exist. Such words are, superficially, factually ‘correct’ only when used in circumstances where the criteria and limitations against which they are used are defined. In reality, correctness /incorrectness might not exist and the words might represent only a situation, not a judgement. We are trying to express such concepts by using an inadequate understanding of time and using language, certainly an inadequate tool, even though it is inevitably the only one we are equipped with. We think in our own national languages, so if you have a bad language you inevitably can’t think clearly and all are far from perfect. Perhaps an electronic language will develop based, like computers, simply on yes/no or on/off which will be more in line with the way things are.

Almost as if it were done subconsciously to avoid facing the truth, use of verbs imposing moral obligation are confusing in several languages, for example ‘should’ in English, ‘sollen’ in German and ‘devoir’, with its subjunctive in French. Take the example of the wicked mercenary who has surrounded a native village. He will say, "I want to kill everybody, so I will send my plane to bomb them". The priest would say, "You should not do that. It is not right". The employer of the mercenary would say, "It would be wrong to do that. What you should do is slowly close in with machine guns". ‘Should’ and ‘right and wrong’ exist in both a moral and a factual sense and we all live confused between the two. We ‘should’ not say the concept of ‘morality’ and ‘blame’ is ‘wrong’. It is just as inevitable the good priest and wicked mercenary boss were going to say what they did as it is that this comment is being written. You might say that something is not in accordance with the facts but even that does not clarify the situation. Basically, everything is an inevitable movement of electrons, or even smaller particles, whether it is a thought, an expression of right or wrong, or a brick.

In awareness of Inevitability Theory you can, of course, still use expressions such as ‘I am entitled to’ and ‘It is right that’ but will be in a position inevitably to recognise the inevitable fallacy.

 

 


 
Google Translator
Inevitable Ads
Advertisement
 
 
Visitors
Today 's Top 20
 100 % United States
Amazon Ads

 
       
© 2019 The Inevitable Dossier