Discordianism and Morality

[Messier Undertree]

It would be his moral duty to torture and rape in the most horrible way possible anyone with "Mal" in their names

[Eve]

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'?

Morals, by definition, are the standards of right and wrong as determined by a given society or religion. Ethics are your personal philosophy--you choose to guide yourself by x, y, and z because you've determined that they work best for you. When you conform to a set of morals, you're subscribing to someone else's idea of right and wrong. (Note that doing so isn't necessarily a Bad Thing.) Morals are "not very grey" because they have been defined, standardized, and accepted. The ethical application of those morals, or lack thereof, is the grey space.

This breaks it down pretty well.

[hooplala]

Either way, Discordianism isn't going to answer it for you.

[AFK]

Right, because the whole point is for YOU to answer it for YOU. 

NO YUO!

[Triple Zero]

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.

THIS.

Fuckgoddamnit, morals aren't "grown" or "evolved" or "born". They appear because you use your fucking brain! Not because your parents caused your fleshy shell to survive up to this point. They are here because YOU are here, right now, playing the Game of the Universe. They appear out of nowhere, out of Chaos, they appear because all the others are playing as well. Not because they or their parents survived either, but because they too are right there, right then, playing the same Game. And there's WAY more to that Game than merely evolution or survival.

Gorillas can play too, btw. And so can airplanes.

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.

NO. this is fucking bullshit. You're confusing biological evolution with cultural evolution. Especially on the topic of morality this is bunk. You may get raised with a certain set of morals from your parents or tribe, but as so many people on this forum have proven by example, you don't need to stick with those like you're stuck with, say, the colour of your eyes.

[LMNO]

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.

Deliniation:  There is a difference between Moral Relativism_Malcoid and Moral Relativism_LMNO.

You asked about Discordian Morals (possible existence thereof), not about what Discordians thought about Moral Relativism_Malcoid.

As a Discordian, and thinking for myself {as a schmuck}, I have defined the issue in my own terms, that being Moral Relativism_LMNO.  Which goes as follows:

1. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL CODE OF MORALS.
    A) There are some morals that many people agree with, most of the time.
2. MORALS ARE A HUMAN CREATION.
    A) They are not genetic, holy, nor sacred.
3. REGIONAL CULTURE INFLUENCES AN INDIVIDUAL'S MORALS.
    A) However, and indiviual can make their own choices as to their personal moral code.
4. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS DIFFERENT MORALS THAN YOU DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE WRONG.
    A) But that doesn't mean they're right, either.  
    B) And it certainly doesn't mean you're right.
5. FIFTH POINT.


Anyway, what this basically means is that individual morality is subjective and variable.  What this also means is that you judge other people's morals through your own morality.

Even though your morality is mutable, it's still yours.  It still creates taboos towards certain things.  What that means is that if you have Orthodox Jewish morals, it's okay to find eating pork repulsive.  But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you.  

Of course, there's nothing saying you can't try and convince me that bacon is shameful.  But you can't start your argument claiming some Universal Mandate.

In this way, you can create your own moral code, one that makes sense to you, and you can tweak it as you see fit to make your mind a better place to live.

[Eve]

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.

Deliniation:  There is a difference between Moral Relativism_Malcoid and Moral Relativism_LMNO.

You asked about Discordian Morals (possible existence thereof), not about what Discordians thought about Moral Relativism_Malcoid.

As a Discordian, and thinking for myself {as a schmuck}, I have defined the issue in my own terms, that being Moral Relativism_LMNO.  Which goes as follows:

1. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL CODE OF MORALS.
    A) There are some morals that many people agree with, most of the time.
2. MORALS ARE A HUMAN CREATION.
    A) They are not genetic, holy, nor sacred.
3. REGIONAL CULTURE INFLUENCES AN INDIVIDUAL'S MORALS.
    A) However, and indiviual can make their own choices as to their personal moral code.
4. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS DIFFERENT MORALS THAN YOU DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE WRONG.
    A) But that doesn't mean they're right, either.  
    B) And it certainly doesn't mean you're right.
5. FIFTH POINT.


Anyway, what this basically means is that individual morality is subjective and variable.  What this also means is that you judge other people's morals through your own morality.

Even though your morality is mutable, it's still yours.  It still creates taboos towards certain things.  What that means is that if you have Orthodox Jewish morals, it's okay to find eating pork repulsive.  But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you.  

Of course, there's nothing saying you can't try and convince me that bacon is shameful.  But you can't start your argument claiming some Universal Mandate.

In this way, you can create your own moral code, one that makes sense to you, and you can tweak it as you see fit to make your mind a better place to live.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Dogs Understand Fairness, Get Jealous, Study Finds

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

Precisely the study I was thinking of! Thanks Telarus

[hooplala]

I have enjoyed this conversation very much!

[Jenne]

This reminds me of the conversations we used to have in university.

And the ethics vs. morals thing is only fun when there's no religious fanatics involved.  Or strike that and reverse it if you're an asshat.

[Cainad (dec.)]

I thought I had a witty one-line way of explaining "Discordian morality." But then, as it turns out, I didn't.


Guess I'll have to read the thread and try to make a meaningful contribution to the existing discussion, then.

[Cain]

Isn't a 'moral code' that thing leaders insist their follows adhere to, while they ignore it totally?

Snarky one liners are a categorical imperative.  Or they would have been, if Kant had a sense of humour.

[LMNO]

Isn't a 'moral code' that thing leaders insist their follows adhere to, while they ignore it totally?

Snarky one liners are a categorical imperative.  Or they would have been, if Kant had a sense of humour.

So true.  So true.

Also,

I have a moral code.  You have a fucked-up irrational belief system.

[Cain]

I have a fucked up irrational belief system.  You have a fucked up irrational belief system.

Shit, I copied and pasted that wrong.

[AFK]

I have a fucked up irritable belief system.