Discordianism and Morality

[AFK]

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.

Yes.  The trick is, if your personal opinion is a little too out there, society will let you know with a pitchfork up your ass. 

[hooplala]

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?

Yes.

My personal opinion supersedes anyone else's opinion.  My morals are the only morals that matter to me.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

That seems like quite a claim.  You appear willing to assume that the morally correct choice is also the choice that makes people more likely to pass on their genes, yet, I'm not sure I agree with that at all, particularly given the history of our species. The strongest, far more often than the most moral, seem traditionally to be the most likely to pass on their genes.

Further, doesn't this argument also rely on morals being subjective... that is they would be subjectively based on what prompted survival among our ancestors (at that point in history), rather than some objective list of what is and is not moral? Aren't you just pushing the 'relative' state off to some long dead monkeys, rather than dealing with it head on? This seems true of most of your statements in this post... even the idea that somehow we have a biological standard of morality. Because, at that point, all morals would appear to become relative to the genetics of the society. Unless you're arguing that these genetically codified morals are the only bits of the human genome that are not prone to mutation, variation, genetic drift etc.

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.

Just because morals may be relative, doesn't mean I have no right to my opinion of the actions of others. Let us not confuse the nature of morals with the practical application of existing in society together. The point of relativism is to rid ourselves of the dogmatic view that X is the Moral Standard (where X = Judeo-Christian Western Morals or Any Number of other systems).

For me personally, that means that rather than a moral/immoral touchstone by which I judge the acts of others... I base my judgment ON THE ACT in Context. So, a priest that diddles the alter boys, IMO, exists in an entirely different spectrum than someone that meets his new 14year old wife on their wedding day. So too, a person that kidnaps a pregnant woman and induces abortion exists in a completely different moral situation than a doctor that aborts a fetus because the pregnant woman has decided for some reason that it is not a good idea to have the child.

In and of themselves, I don't think there's a moral/not moral position... Dead fetus... sex with young human... in and of themselves are simply acts, taken in context... they become relative morals.

Further I agree with BAWHEED's comments too

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

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

well, if you accept evolution, its all dervied from the same source, which likely had some set of morals to govern complex social interaction before racial differentiation took place.

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.

Yes, I believe so.

I suppose the conversation has meandered, but it has also been useful. Thanks for the comments everyone... I shall return after further brain processing.

[Vene]

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

well, if you accept evolution, its all dervied from the same source, which likely had some set of morals to govern complex social interaction before racial differentiation took place.

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.

Um, what?  You are aware that apes other than humans have complex social interactions right?  You know, like gorillas.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For me personally, that means that rather than a moral/immoral touchstone by which I judge the acts of others... I base my judgment ON THE ACT in Context. So, a priest that diddles the alter boys, IMO, exists in an entirely different spectrum than someone that meets his new 14year old wife on their wedding day. So too, a person that kidnaps a pregnant woman and induces abortion exists in a completely different moral situation than a doctor that aborts a fetus because the pregnant woman has decided for some reason that it is not a good idea to have the child.

In and of themselves, I don't think there's a moral/not moral position... Dead fetus... sex with young human... in and of themselves are simply acts, taken in context... they become relative morals.

Sorry to repeat myself, but morals are, kind of by definition, not very grey. You are talking ethics.

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

Sorry to repeat myself, but morals are, kind of by definition, not very grey. You are talking ethics.

Can you elaborate on this? Morals, by definition, are the basic distinctions between right and wrong. Ethics are a set of behavioral standards based on morals.

How do you define morals as being 'not very grey'?

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

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?

Yes.  The trick is, if your personal opinion is a little too out there, society will let you know with a pitchfork up your ass. 

This is starting to make more sense. I suppose the practical application of being moral within a functioning society is really an easy one.

I think that the crux of my question was whether or not Discordianism could be used to determine immoral actions. The answer I have concluded is no, I can do that quite capably on my own. Conversely, I think it could used to justify rather questionable behavior, but that doesnt really matter because I would disagree with their actions regardless of the justification they provided.

[hooplala]

I think that the crux of my question was whether or not Discordianism could be used to determine immoral actions. The answer I have concluded is no, I can do that quite capably on my own. Conversely, I think it could used to justify rather questionable behavior, but that doesnt really matter because I would disagree with their actions regardless of the justification they provided.

I would agree with this, but the same can be said of most interesting ideas.

[Eater of Clowns]

Ethical relativism is just as much an excuse to do whatever you want as ethical righteousness.

It is my firm belief to not hold firm beliefs.

[Golden Applesauce]

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

well, if you accept evolution, its all dervied from the same source, which likely had some set of morals to govern complex social interaction before racial differentiation took place.

waitwaitwait stop the presses

Explain how the application of probability to imperfect self-replication, which tends to result in things better at self-replication, can generate normative statements.  Just because my genes are less likely to be passed on if I kill my children doesn't make killing my children wrong.  If it did then it would also make murdering those who make my children less likely to reproduce right.

[Golden Applesauce]

Actually, that's not absurd enough.

If morality is based on biology, then we could genetically engineer a bio-ubermensch with different morality genes.  It would be his moral duty to torture and rape in the most horrible way possible anyone with "Mal" in their names, and it would be objectively right for him to do so.

It's just moral relativity, only by species instead of by culture.

[Telarus]

Dogs Understand Fairness, Get Jealous, Study Finds

Interestingly, this just came up in my friendslist on LJ.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sorry to repeat myself, but morals are, kind of by definition, not very grey. You are talking ethics.

Can you elaborate on this? Morals, by definition, are the basic distinctions between right and wrong. Ethics are a set of behavioral standards based on morals.

How do you define morals as being 'not very grey'?

Dude, I...


just fucking look it up, OK.

[Bu🤠ns]

How does Discordianism relate to morality?

I am chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are free.