Discordianism and Morality

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

Hold on a second.

Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?

Not having different morals, but giving into a rather pervasive trend of completely accepting moral relativsim.

The idea runs that because we all come from different cultures, different backgrounds blah blah blah, you cannot impose your set of morals on another. This is a fair enough premise. But lets take that too the extreme.

In some particularlly horrible excesses of the 20th and 21st century, soliders used mass rape agaisnt an enemy. It was generally accepted by those overseeing the actions, and these men escaped any punitive action. Lots of them probably really enjoyed it and thought nothing was wrong at all.

Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.

Again, that sounds like a personal problem.  It also sounds like you're venturing into either/or territory.

"Either morals are universal and good, or they're meaningless and evil!"

Fuzzy logic, buddy.

First premise is good:  A person from a different culture will have different morals than you.
Second premise is off base: A different set of morals must be fully accepted.

What Moral Relativism allows is for the realization that both YOU and THE FOREIGN GUY have different belief systems, and that YOU might but just as fucked up as you see HIM to be.

It allows for a middle ground, and it allows for objective discussion of morals. 

While it removes UNIVERSAL right and wrong, it also doesn't throw RELATIVE right and wrong out the window.

Really? I dont see how there can be an objective discussion of morals if we accept both sets as equally valid. You say in your last sentance, we are left with relative right and wrong. Im really quite curious as to how you can have any sort of objective discussion or make any possible judgement under those circumstances.

As far as the personal problem you keep referring to, it burns when I pee. Im going to see my doctor on thursday.

[LMNO]

Please point out when I said each were equally valid.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hold on a second.

Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?

Not having different morals, but giving into a rather pervasive trend of completely accepting moral relativsim.

The idea runs that because we all come from different cultures, different backgrounds blah blah blah, you cannot impose your set of morals on another. This is a fair enough premise. But lets take that too the extreme.

In some particularlly horrible excesses of the 20th and 21st century, soliders used mass rape agaisnt an enemy. It was generally accepted by those overseeing the actions, and these men escaped any punitive action. Lots of them probably really enjoyed it and thought nothing was wrong at all.

Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.

Again, that sounds like a personal problem.  It also sounds like you're venturing into either/or territory.

"Either morals are universal and good, or they're meaningless and evil!"

Fuzzy logic, buddy.

First premise is good:  A person from a different culture will have different morals than you.
Second premise is off base: A different set of morals must be fully accepted.

What Moral Relativism allows is for the realization that both YOU and THE FOREIGN GUY have different belief systems, and that YOU might but just as fucked up as you see HIM to be.

It allows for a middle ground, and it allows for objective discussion of morals. 

While it removes UNIVERSAL right and wrong, it also doesn't throw RELATIVE right and wrong out the window.

Really? I dont see how there can be an objective discussion of morals if we accept both sets as equally valid. You say in your last sentance, we are left with relative right and wrong. Im really quite curious as to how you can have any sort of objective discussion or make any possible judgement under those circumstances.

As far as the personal problem you keep referring to, it burns when I pee. Im going to see my doctor on thursday.

Hang on a second. How do you propose that we have an objective discussion of morals to begin with?

[Elder Iptuous]

Random dude in far off land is just getting a wife the way his society thinks best... Bob the Happy Pedophile, PROBABLY has some psychological issues and may be far more interested in the power than in a future wife/mate/mother of his children.

Doesn't mean either is a Good Idea... but to think they're identical seems silly to me.

while i agree with you, essentially, i wouldn't be willing to say they are completely different.
the morals of an individual and the morals of a society can be argued against in the same way.
'everybody does it' seems to get more credibility in your wording than i would give it...
i dunno. i could probably be found inconsistent in my morality with very little probing.
...
just try to remain aloof and not unduly torque anybody off, and you should be alright.  that's what i do.

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

Please point out when I said each were equally valid.

Eh, you said a different set of morals must be fully accepted. Close enough.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Please point out when I said each were equally valid.

Eh, you said a different set of morals must be fully accepted. Close enough.

He did? Are you reading posts from LMNO on principiadiscordia.com or are you in a different conversation somewhere else?

The only time I see LMNO say "fully accepted" is where he pointed to the premise as being "off base"

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Random dude in far off land is just getting a wife the way his society thinks best... Bob the Happy Pedophile, PROBABLY has some psychological issues and may be far more interested in the power than in a future wife/mate/mother of his children.

Doesn't mean either is a Good Idea... but to think they're identical seems silly to me.

while i agree with you, essentially, i wouldn't be willing to say they are completely different.
the morals of an individual and the morals of a society can be argued against in the same way.
'everybody does it' seems to get more credibility in your wording than i would give it...
i dunno. i could probably be found inconsistent in my morality with very little probing.
...
just try to remain aloof and not unduly torque anybody off, and you should be alright.  that's what i do.

I would argue that they're different in intent and that is where the moral question lies. If I am raised to believe that its perfectly natural and acceptable to marry a 14 year old. Then my intent is different than the guy who is abusing his power/responsibility/respect etc to victimize innocent/helpless kids.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Youse guys are confuzzling morals and ethics.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Youse guys are confuzzling morals and ethics.

NO YUO!

[Cramulus]

I'm confusing ethics and love!

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.

I am a relativist in every sense.

If you rephrase your comment "rape is wrong.  it is always wrong" in E-Prime I suspect you will find that the certitude vanishes.  The only way something is 'always wrong' is if a set of Objective Values exists, and as far as I have been able to discover, it simply doesn't.  I'm not claiming I am pro-rape, far from it, I consider it to be a heinous and disgusting action, but I understand that my view is exactly that, my personal view, not the view of some Objective Value of the universe.

When a male gorilla mounts a smaller female who isn't interested in him, this could be classified as rape, but who says its wrong?  The other gorillas?  The monkeys watching?  The birds and the bees?  God?  You?

If you find it to be an abdication of responsibility, that's completely fine, but you should understand that this too is simply your view and not some objective fact.  

To me, Discordianism is about taking personal responsibility of our thoughts and actions, and not needing some fairy tale objective value to define our world for us, which is basically what the entire idea of "God" is... passing the buck for your own views and actions on to a 'higher power'.  It's one of the central concepts that I loathe about AA.

That, to me, is an abdication of responsibility, and not the other way around.

You make a good point in that no, we cannot define a set of objective values. And I agree with you, attributing ones ideas to a higher power is an abdication of personal responsiblity.

Your gorilla example is hardly compelling though... animals are not moral creatures, humans are. Consider the evolution from creature of instinct to a rationale thinking being. At some point along the way, complex social cooperation became one of our fundamental advantages over other creatures. As brains developed, so did more complex social interactions. From this arose a generally accepted standard of conducting ourselves in those interactions. Those that cooperated better, thrived to pass on their genes. This is the root of our morals.

Now we have reached a point where our brains are capable of making complex abstract decisions, and we can affect a change to what we consider right and wrong. But, as I wrote above, we have good cause to reason that morals have biological origins.

This would lead me to suggest that there is some biologically dervied inherent sense of morality. Sure, there is that whole 'is the red you see the same red I see' argument, but at some point we have to find common ground. You and I may not see the same red, but we both have two eyes, and can probably agree that someone that has only one eye and insists there are only two colors is abnormal.

Shouldnt we be able to do that with morals as well?

[hooplala]

No, because you are assuming that all cultures have the same set of morals, which is not true.

[Cramulus]

Malcoid, did we answer your question about how Discordia relates to morality? (and to be more specific, we're really talking about the Principia - The PD isn't technically the authority on Discordia, the individual is)

I just want to be sure we're somewhat clear, because the path we're going down is about how some discordians relate to morality, which is an interesting conversation, but an entirely separate one from the original question.

[hooplala]

Malcoid, did we answer your question about how Discordia relates to morality? (and to be more specific, we're really talking about the Principia - The PD isn't technically the authority on Discordia, the individual is)

I just want to be sure we're somewhat clear, because the path we're going down is about how some discordians relate to morality, which is an interesting conversation, but an entirely separate one from the original question.

Very good point.

I would think the PD's argument about morals would be the exact same as its argument about order/disorder.

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

He did? Are you reading posts from LMNO on principiadiscordia.com or are you in a different conversation somewhere else?

The only time I see LMNO say "fully accepted" is where he pointed to the premise as being "off base"

Oh. Uh... I misread the post in question. Opps.

Im still having trouble seeing how one can accept moral relativism and still make any judgement on right and wrong. Isnt it then just a matter of personal opinion?

I shall think a while and come back.