ITT, Freeky shares insights gained after reading Warren Ellis' Transmetropolitan

[Freeky]

Insight # 1: Morals don't really exist. I can't really explain what they are just yet, but I think that much right now.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Insight # 1: Morals don't really exist. I can't really explain what they are just yet, but I think that much right now.

Of course they do.

It's just that society has a very fucked up view of what morals ARE.

[Soylent Green]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

Ironically, I just finished Transmet yesterday too.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

[Soylent Green]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

How do you figure? I mean personally I cannot think of one moral that isn't subjective.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

How do you figure? I mean personally I cannot think of one moral that isn't subjective.

DON'T FUCK INFANTS.

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

On the other hand, there are situations where there is no objective "moral" choice (Cicero's "famine" puzzle, for example).

[Soylent Green]

It would probably be more accurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

How do you figure? I mean personally I cannot think of one moral that isn't subjective.

DON'T FUCK INFANTS.

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

On the other hand, there are situations where there is no objective "moral" choice (Cicero's "famine" puzzle, for example).

Well, what if you had been taught that fucking infants allowed them to go to heaven when they die? I mean aren't our morals largely developed from what we were taught is right during our developing years?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

How do you figure? I mean personally I cannot think of one moral that isn't subjective.

DON'T FUCK INFANTS.

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

On the other hand, there are situations where there is no objective "moral" choice (Cicero's "famine" puzzle, for example).

Well, what if you had been taught that fucking infants allowed them to go to heaven when they die? I mean aren't our morals largely developed from what we were taught is right?

*ahem*

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

Please proceed.

[Soylent Green]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

How do you figure? I mean personally I cannot think of one moral that isn't subjective.

DON'T FUCK INFANTS.

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

On the other hand, there are situations where there is no objective "moral" choice (Cicero's "famine" puzzle, for example).

Well, what if you had been taught that fucking infants allowed them to go to heaven when they die? I mean aren't our morals largely developed from what we were taught is right?

*ahem*

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

Please proceed.

And again, if the person is taught that doing something like that is moral, and that both you and the infant benefit from it, how would your choice to fuck it be immoral? As far as you know, you are saving the baby, not doing it extreme harm.

I mean yes, if I was to go decide that fucking babies was moral right now, after I have had a whole lifetime of believing and being taught that it is horribly immoral, then yes, I would be justifying something that shouldn't be justified, but if a person had truly believed that it was the right action, that it benefited everyone, then how can that person be immoral?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

How do you figure? I mean personally I cannot think of one moral that isn't subjective.

DON'T FUCK INFANTS.

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

On the other hand, there are situations where there is no objective "moral" choice (Cicero's "famine" puzzle, for example).

Well, what if you had been taught that fucking infants allowed them to go to heaven when they die? I mean aren't our morals largely developed from what we were taught is right?

*ahem*

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

Please proceed.

And again, if the person is taught that doing something like that is moral, and that both you and the infant benefit from it, how would your choice to fuck it be immoral? As far as you know, you are saving the baby, not doing it extreme harm.

I mean yes, if I was to go decide that fucking babies was moral right now, after I have had a whole lifetime of believing and being taught that it is horribly immoral, then yes, I would be justifying something that shouldn't be justified, but if a person had truly believed that it was the right action, that it benefited everyone, then how can that person be immoral?

Annnnnnnnnnnnd...

And you should probably eat a gun.

[Soylent Green]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

How do you figure? I mean personally I cannot think of one moral that isn't subjective.

DON'T FUCK INFANTS.

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

On the other hand, there are situations where there is no objective "moral" choice (Cicero's "famine" puzzle, for example).

Well, what if you had been taught that fucking infants allowed them to go to heaven when they die? I mean aren't our morals largely developed from what we were taught is right?

*ahem*

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

Please proceed.

And again, if the person is taught that doing something like that is moral, and that both you and the infant benefit from it, how would your choice to fuck it be immoral? As far as you know, you are saving the baby, not doing it extreme harm.

I mean yes, if I was to go decide that fucking babies was moral right now, after I have had a whole lifetime of believing and being taught that it is horribly immoral, then yes, I would be justifying something that shouldn't be justified, but if a person had truly believed that it was the right action, that it benefited everyone, then how can that person be immoral?

Annnnnnnnnnnnd...

And you should probably eat a gun.

Yes, that is true, but that doesn't change the fact that that moral is subjective, and is only viewed as wrong because more or less all of the population believes it to be so.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

How do you figure? I mean personally I cannot think of one moral that isn't subjective.

DON'T FUCK INFANTS.

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

On the other hand, there are situations where there is no objective "moral" choice (Cicero's "famine" puzzle, for example).

Well, what if you had been taught that fucking infants allowed them to go to heaven when they die? I mean aren't our morals largely developed from what we were taught is right?

*ahem*

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

Please proceed.

And again, if the person is taught that doing something like that is moral, and that both you and the infant benefit from it, how would your choice to fuck it be immoral? As far as you know, you are saving the baby, not doing it extreme harm.

I mean yes, if I was to go decide that fucking babies was moral right now, after I have had a whole lifetime of believing and being taught that it is horribly immoral, then yes, I would be justifying something that shouldn't be justified, but if a person had truly believed that it was the right action, that it benefited everyone, then how can that person be immoral?

Annnnnnnnnnnnd...

And you should probably eat a gun.

Yes, that is true, but that doesn't change the fact that that moral is subjective, and is only viewed as wrong because more or less all of the population believes it to be so.

Cheesy excuses and cheap rationalizations for evil do not equal morality.

[Fuquad]

It would probably be more acurate to say either: Universal morals don't exist, or Morals are completely subjective, seeing how morals are based upon what is right or wrong, and what is right and what is wrong are COMPLETELY subjective ideas.

NO.

Morals are somewhat subjective, with some absolutes.  And right and wrong DO exist, and are not subjective.

How do you figure? I mean personally I cannot think of one moral that isn't subjective.

DON'T FUCK INFANTS.

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

On the other hand, there are situations where there is no objective "moral" choice (Cicero's "famine" puzzle, for example).

Well, what if you had been taught that fucking infants allowed them to go to heaven when they die? I mean aren't our morals largely developed from what we were taught is right?

*ahem*

How's that?  I mean, if you think that's moral under ANY circumstances, then what you're trying to do is justify the unjustifiable by making "morals" mean something other than what its definition is.  And you should probably eat a gun.

Please proceed.

And again, if the person is taught that doing something like that is moral, and that both you and the infant benefit from it, how would your choice to fuck it be immoral? As far as you know, you are saving the baby, not doing it extreme harm.

I mean yes, if I was to go decide that fucking babies was moral right now, after I have had a whole lifetime of believing and being taught that it is horribly immoral, then yes, I would be justifying something that shouldn't be justified, but if a person had truly believed that it was the right action, that it benefited everyone, then how can that person be immoral?

Annnnnnnnnnnnd...

And you should probably eat a gun.

Yes, that is true, but that doesn't change the fact that that moral is subjective, and is only viewed as wrong because more or less all of the population believes it to be so.

Shit. At one time more or less all of the population believed that the earth is flat. What more or less of the population believes has nothing to do with what is right.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Shit. At one time more or less all of the population believed that the earth is flat. What more or less of the population believes has nothing to do with what is right.

I just wanted to see if he would chase his wishy-washy e-prime bullshit all the way into defending pederasty.

He did.


Hell, I even gave him a counter-example as a way out, but some people will do ANYTHING to avoid admitting they might have been even partially wrong.

Ugh.

[Brotep]

I agree, certain things are indefensible.


What about situations where you are forced to choose between a lesser evil and a greater evil?  Do you choose the lesser evil, or refuse to play the game?