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

[Soylent Green]

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.

What the hell are you talking about? Yes, if that remarkably improbable situation occurred, the individual would be "morally correct" according to his morals.

My morals would tell me that he is batshit insane and that he should probably be executed or at least put in an asylum.

What the hell does the hypothetical situation have to do with the fact that morals are subjective though? Are you really trying to say that I am a bad person because the situation you brought up is something that everyone here finds horrible?

[Fuquad]

What about situations where you are forced to choose between a lesser evil and a greater evil?

I have never been in one of these situations. 

Do you choose the lesser evil, or refuse to play the game?

As I've never been in one of these situations, I don't know what my reaction would be.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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?

That's the counterexample I mentioned.

Case One: A Famine at Rhodes
Suppose that there is a food-shortage and famine at Rhodes, and the price of corn is extremely high. An honest man has brought the Rhodians a large stock of corn from Alexandria. He is aware that a number of other traders are on their way from Alexandria -- he has seen their ships making for Rhodes, with substantial cargoes of grain. Ought he to tell the Rhodians this? Or is he to say nothing and sell his stock at the best price he can get? I am assuming he is an enlightened, honest person. I am asking you to consider the deliberations and self-searchings of the sort of man who would not keep the Rhodians in ignorance if he thought this would be dishonest but who is not certain that dishonesty would be involved. (P.178)
By not telling the Rhodians, the seller will obviously get more money for his grain. If the Rhodians know that more grain is enroute, then the knowledge of that increase in the supply will likely drive down the price of the grain that the merchant can get. Is it honest to profit by withholding this knowledge from his customers?
Cicero asks us to weigh the merits of two opposing points of view on what the honest person should do. One the one hand, it could be argued that the merchant should reveal all of the facts. In Cicero's words, "the purchaser must be as fully informed as the seller." On the other hand, it could be argued that so long as the seller is not breaking the law in concealing defects about his goods and provided he is telling no falsehoods, then he is not required to reveal the information to the Rhodians. Cicero says that someone advancing this view could argue:
Concealing is one thing, but not revealing is another. If I do not reveal to you, at this moment, what the goods are like--or the nature of the Highest Good--I am not concealing that information (which would certainly be more useful to you than the knowledge that wheat prices were down). I am not obliged to tell you everything that would be useful for you to know.
The counter-argument, according to Cicero, is that even as a merchant or business person:
You ought to work for your fellow men and serve the interests of mankind. These are the conditions under which you were born, these are the principles which you are in duty bound to follow and obey--you must identify your interests with the interests of the community, and theirs with yours. How, then, can you conceal from your fellow men that abundant supplies and benefits are due to reach them shortly? (P.178)
Notice that Cicero holds that neither side is saying that this action, however wrong, can be performed merely because it is personally advantageous. He presents us with a case where "One side is claiming that the action is advantageous without being wrong, while the other urges that it is wrong, and should therefore not be committed." (P.179)

From here:

http://www.stthom.edu/Public/getFile.asp?isDownload=1&File_Content_ID=518

[Freeky]

*MISTRESS FREEKY AMENDS HER STATEMENT:

There are some things that are universally abhorrent, and if certain parties feel that this is not so, then they can go to hell and die.

However, the thought remains in my head that certain ideas are given to us under the name of 'morality' just so people can say that the other people are bad people.

Examples:
Conservative views of homosexuality.
Some religious standpoints on other religions.
And many, many more that I don't feel like typing out right now.

Mistress Freeky may still be wrong on something. But it was just a thought, anyway. And she hasn't been enlightened since. :/

[Jasper]

Transmet spoke to me very differently. To me it said that cultural norms have NOTHING to do with morals. What's right or wrong has always been a very real thing, distinct from what is normal, and it takes bravery and willingness to deviate from what is normal to stand for what is right. 

[Freeky]

I didn't necessarily get the idea from reading Transmet. It popped into my head while I was over at TCC for some reason, still in the state of mind I had gotten into while reading it.

I'm gonna read it again!

[Jasper]

Oh, I was thinking that was a thoughtful and considered assessment of the literature. I take things seriously sometimes. Working on that.

[Freeky]

I considered it, and my assessment is that if a person has enough drive and determination and are willing to get off their ass, they can get things done. What did it say to you?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Transmet spoke to me very differently. To me it said that cultural norms have NOTHING to do with morals. What's right or wrong has always been a very real thing, distinct from what is normal, and it takes bravery and willingness to deviate from what is normal to stand for what is right. 

This.

[Brotep]

Thanks for the quotation; I'm not up on my Cicero.

That still doesn't answer my question, though.  That's the scenario; what would you if you found yourself in it?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thanks for the quotation; I'm not up on my Cicero.

That still doesn't answer my question, though.  That's the scenario; what would you if you found yourself in it?

I'd burn the ship in the harbor mouth and dance while I - and the corn - went under.  Fuckers.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What the hell are you talking about? Yes, if that remarkably improbable situation occurred, the individual would be "morally correct" according to his morals.

Fuck "his" morals.  SOME things are right or wrong, no wiggle room.  Some things aren't.  You chased off into weird pederasty defense to avoid admitting that you might have spoken too soon.

Ook, ook, dumbshit.

[Reginald Ret]

I'd sell the corn extremely cheap, go back to the other traders , show them how little money is to be made and offer to buy their corn.

step 2: monopoly

step 3: use monopoly to get power instead of money.
this way you look like the good guy while setting yourself up for life.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'd sell the corn extremely cheap, go back to the other traders , show them how little money is to be made and offer to buy their corn.

step 2: monopoly

step 3: use monopoly to get power instead of money.
this way you look like the good guy while setting yourself up for life.

Good fucking luck with that...I've already blocked the harbor with a burning wreck.

My floating corpse mocks you.

[LMNO]

"Morals" shouldn't mean "what I was told to believe in", but I understand that most definitions do not make this distinction.

The common definition usually stops at "a belief regarding what is Right and what is Wrong."  There is no clarification made for Thinking For Yourself, it allows blind belief as a basis of morality.

But perhaps that is all this word can give us: "Morality is just another Belief System".

So, maybe we should leave that word behind, and look for a new one... Because that definition allows for Soylent's shenanagins, i.e. if a child is taught something, and doesn't bother thinking it through, they can get away with calling it "morality", even though they aren't acting morally, they are acting like sleepwalking sheep.

Perhaps "ethics."  A general definition of ethics can be "the process of thought regarding moral questions."  That pretty much demands you think about what your moral beliefs are.  This gets us out from under the "I was raised this way" argument, and demands that a person thinks about their actions, and cannot fall back on blind observance of what they were told.

In that situation, you begin to approach the TGRR stance.  If you try to argue and defend fucking infants without the cover of "it's what I was taught", it becomes incredibly difficult not to sound like a goddamn psychopath.

So... tl;dr -- Both "morality" and "ethics" tend to be subjective, but "morality" allows for blind belief, while "ethics" does not.