"Jacobs, Robert E." wrote:

> Intuition is one of those intangible things that I personally don't think comes
> (totally) by way of neither sensory experience nor reasoning, and as such I am
> one of those "pie-in-the-sky" spiritualists who believe that right and wrong
> are not necessarily a function of necessity, but are divine in nature.  Each of
> us possesses the conduit to receive this wisdom, and often times it
> consists of nothing more than a "feeling", when you know that something just
> "is". Have you ever had something just not *feel* right?

Thanks Robert, . . . been there, done that, argued vehemently about what was
"right" based on my divine intuition/feeling/sense, . . . but could that
"intuition" merely be emotion that accommodates what's convenient for me,  ...
especially if it becomes obvious the other side is arguing from an equally valid
sense of divine inspiration and not because they're really just evil?
Practically everyone is ready to state a conclusion;  I'd like to know how the
99.9% came to their "moral" conclusion.  I think intuition-based conclusions are
suspect until supported by enough logic to suggest the "intuition" wasn't merely
self-serving emotion.  "Self-serving emotion" includes the comfort of believing
all the things mommy and daddy and coach imprinted on me when I was young; how do
I know where they got it from?  Wish I was better at logic.


> The fact is, that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense *not* to bash someone
> over the head and take their wallet, if you were to need the cash. I actually
> couldn't give you a "logical" argument to not do so; my argument would involve
> some "mythical" diety and beliefs that I couldn't explain away.

Been there, done that, argued vehemently from that standpoint, ... but it also
seems that most principles deemed be handed down by a  "mythical" diety really
have a logical basis for being constructed as they are.  Can't you construct most
"moral" considerations from basic logic whether or not you believe some deity has
also written them down for the benefit of those who can't figure them out for
ourselves?  Most common sense logic about how all members of a society benefit
most from working  together for the common good ("responsibly", "morally") can be
constructed with or without believing that a deity started the whole thing.
Can't non-deity logic explain how we'd all be better served in the long run if we
all subscribe to the social contract that says we won't steal each other's
wallets?  I think you need logic, not merely a restatement of another's
conclusions, to justify moral conclusions.


> If there's a reason that "99.9" of people do the same thing in an
> instance (and is thus considered the "right" thing), perhaps it's
> because that though we all possess the conduit, that .1% chose not to
> open the valve, at least for that particular issue. At some point,
> we've all decided not to open it, for our own selfish reasons. I
> believe this valve is on a separate circuit from the brain, as logic and
> intellect often run counter to wisdom.

I go the other way.  I mistrust calling it wisdom unless I can come to the same
conclusion with unemotional logic and understand why the logic in the opposing
position is flawed.  I'm trying to understand the logic that explains why
"competing on the field of play to do your very best to win a single, relatively
meaningless game" is so intrinsically and  intuitively the "moral" thing to do
while "competing on the field of play to do your very best to maximize the
results of the season's play using mental processes to determine the optimum
strategy to accomplish that while strengthening the organization's athletic
program which provides opportunities to future deserving athletes and making your
parents proud that you can think instead of merely repeating what others told you
to believe" is so intrinsically and  intuitively the "immoral" thing to do that a
coach should be summarily fired immediately upon discovery that he did so.

The question is about why the value of a single game so intrinsically virtuous
that one couldn't apply the same reasoning to a season without being "immoral".
What's so intrinsically virtuous about the value of a single battle that one
couldn't apply the same reasoning to an entire war without being "immoral".  I
think Eisenhower understood it, but I last saw him in a pine box pulled behind a
horse down Pennsylvania Avenue.  That 99.9% of the people never really gave it
much thought doesn't make something moral or immoral.


> Let's extrapolate this to its logical extreme; what if, by some freakish
> occurrence, one's playoff position could only be secured by losing 10
> games in a row; would it be acceptable then? Where do you draw
> the line? Sure, okay, throw that one game...at what point does
> winning take a back seat to the game itself?

Draw the line at 10 games.  Can't the team can "morally" elect to go for the
seasonal goal?  If they then decide a strategy calling for 10 losses optimizes
their chances of achieving a perfectly reasonable goal, the "moral" thing to do
would be to refrain from getting lazy and being satisfied to drop 11 games, ...
or to refrain from being so undisciplined and antsy that they can't resist the
urge to start winning again after only 5 losses.  Fortunately, ten is rarely the
magic number.


> Sorry, I know I've gone a bit off-track at some points; but it does
> seem that there is a correlation here with something much bigger
> than sport. It *is* a great question, though! :-)

Agreed, especially if you think sports are a practice field for things that
really matter and it's important to get it right for that reason.  Since
universities are supposed to be forums for thought, seems like college sports
should be too.  On the other hand, if sport is merely entertainment and nothing
more, it's much ado about nothing.

Thanks, Robert.

boB