Insight # 1: Morals don't really exist. I can't really explain what they are just yet, but I think that much right now.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on December 13, 2009, 10:09:30 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:51:49 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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?
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:51:49 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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*
QuoteHow'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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:51:49 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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*
QuoteHow'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?
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 10:02:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:51:49 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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*
QuoteHow'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...
QuoteAnd you should probably eat a gun.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 10:03:27 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 10:02:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:51:49 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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*
QuoteHow'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...
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 10:03:27 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 10:02:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:51:49 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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*
QuoteHow'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...
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 10:03:27 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 10:02:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:51:49 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
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*
QuoteHow'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...
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on December 14, 2009, 10:18:37 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2009, 10:21:03 PM
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on December 14, 2009, 10:18:37 PM
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?
Quote from: Brotep on December 14, 2009, 10:52:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Brotep on December 14, 2009, 10:52:55 PMDo 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.
Quote from: Brotep on December 14, 2009, 10:52:55 PM
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.
QuoteCase 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
*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. :/
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.
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! :D
Oh, I was thinking that was a thoughtful and considered assessment of the literature. I take things seriously sometimes. Working on that.
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?
Quote from: Felix on December 15, 2009, 03:26:57 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Brotep on December 15, 2009, 05:52:22 AM
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.
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 11:04:31 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Regret on December 15, 2009, 06:07:34 AM
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.
"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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 06:12:26 AM
Quote from: Regret on December 15, 2009, 06:07:34 AM
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.
Step 2) Dump crude oil in the area around the burning wreck
Step 3) ???
Step 4) POPCORN
All's well that ends well.
Quote from: Felix on December 15, 2009, 03:26:57 AM
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.
:mittens:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 06:03:34 AM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 11:04:31 PM
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.
That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.
So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?
Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.
The point is that there are culturally universal norms that, for whatever reason emerge as "right" and "wrong" in terms of realistic ethics. It could be that these social laws emerged as evolutionary traits. Perhaps humans are evolved to find pederasty deeply objectionable because of how damaging it is. I think you'll find that truly culture-independent norms and ethics all have a common root in prosocial behavior.
As such, many cultural norms in this era are constantly changing or eroding, but the difference between the ones that change and the ones that don't is clearly demarcated by their function among human society. Certain things will go in and out of vogue, such as what defines attractiveness, success, and happiness in life. Some things are a bit more timeless than that, however, and the distinction is nontrivial.
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 15, 2009, 09:55:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 06:03:34 AM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 11:04:31 PM
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.
That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.
So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?
Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.
Name one culture where baby fucking is condoned.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 10:17:15 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 15, 2009, 09:55:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 06:03:34 AM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 11:04:31 PM
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.
That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.
So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?
Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.
Name one culture where baby fucking is condoned.
No culture like that would survive because all "normal" cultures are extremely against it, so they would naturally be against that culture.
And just because culture accepts something as moral or rejects it doesn't make it moral in the slightest.
For example, public homosexuality used to be illegal in some countries, yet now many people believe it to be just as moral as heterosexuality. Which is "right" and which is "wrong"?
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 15, 2009, 11:51:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 10:17:15 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 15, 2009, 09:55:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 06:03:34 AM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 11:04:31 PM
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.
That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.
So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?
Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.
Name one culture where baby fucking is condoned.
No culture like that would survive because all "normal" cultures are extremely against it, so they would naturally be against that culture.
And just because culture accepts something as moral or rejects it doesn't make it moral in the slightest.
For example, public homosexuality used to be illegal in some countries, yet now many people believe it to be just as moral as heterosexuality. Which is "right" and which is "wrong"?
You're the one arguing that there is no absolute right or wrong. Roger is arguing that there is. You asking which is right and wrong based on your assumptions is just plain stupid.
Quote from: LMNO on December 15, 2009, 02:19:12 PM
"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.
:mittens: by the way
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 15, 2009, 09:55:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 06:03:34 AM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 14, 2009, 11:04:31 PM
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.
That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.
So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?
Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.
:lulz:
You know, other people have posted ITT, too.
Also, why are you assuming that the subjective is the only point of view?
:mittens:, Felix & LMNO
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 15, 2009, 09:55:53 PMThat was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.
well, let's say this hypothetical tribe of babyfuckers exists, and let's say they are reasonably pleasant people otherwise. would you defend their morality?
would you say "well, it's their culture, and they were raised like that, so that's okay." or would you be more like "WTF THATS NOT RIGHT"
no wait, I know, how about we make it a littlebit more real.
Afaik, there is no hypothetical tribe of babyfuckers.
There are, however, tribes in Africa, (or was it Fundie ME Muslim places, I forgot) where they amputate the female's clitoris as the girl reaches puberty. Some of them are also in the business of partly sewing the vagina shut in order so they bleed more when they lose their virginity (I shudder to think about the hygiene problems when they have their period).
So, this is of course all in the name of religious morality, and the people were culturally raised to think this is perfectly okay cause it's the Will of God and That is How it's Done. Except for the women, I suppose, but the religious morality dictates that their opinion does not matter.
I think you can guess my question to you now.
Do you think--this is almost too retarded to ask, but I can understand it's a tough one to wrap your head around until you really realize what sort of fucking awful things monkeys can and WILL actually do to eachother--that this is relatively moral?
Would you not say, hey I don't fucking care what their religious beliefs are but that is just fucking wrong in one of the most absolute senses of the word Wrong?
QuoteSo answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?
I don't really have a good answer for how it's objective.
(Like where does it come from, etc. You can philosophize about that for ages but never really get anywhere)
I do, however, have a whole bunch of very good answers for how it's NOT subjective. See above.
QuoteOh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.
Roger has a kind of prescience for dumbassery.
In my eyes, you're really just digging real fast into a dumbasshole. But if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you're getting.
Fuck, can we talk about Transmet?
Here is what I gleaned it:
Spider Jerusalem represents integrity. The kind of integrity that speaks the truth, he puts forth his own flaws in doing so, but he's intelligent enough to exploit the weaknesses of his opponents to accomplish his own ends. Although, he's a chaotic personality (which endears him to us), basically he takes extreme risks in order to catch a few people off guard and the only thing that saves him is the integrity of his assistants.
Essentially, Spider is a representation of integrity itself.
I'm surprised that somebody would think that Transmet didnt have strong moral themes.
Spider represents them.
What's most revealing is when he reveals Truth at the price of his own well-being and happiness.
"The Truth will set you free, but no one ever said it would make you happy."
- Me, just now.
Also, regarding the Morality fracas: A lot of us here know about, and have accepted, the "fuzzy logic" model, which works on a sliding scale. If we use the above definitions of "moral" and "ethical", we may be able to "average" them out [please note, the preceding language is abstract and metaphorical].
So, to take the idea of "helping your neighbor not starve to death", that would usually rate highly on both the moral and ethical scale (unless your neighbor is Pol Pot). So, the Fuzzy Moral rating would be high.
On the other hand, genital mutilation of young girls may rate positive for some tribes (and, to be honest, perhaps only for some of the male elders who are in charge), but ethically it's a fucking nightmare. So, that would rate much lower on the Fuzzy Moral scale.
Sure, it's not a perfect system, but it does point out the fact that just because you can call 5 different belief systems "moral", that doesn't make them equal.
Moral Relativism *can't* exist.
You can have moral nihilism, or one of 31 different flavors of absolutism, or some bizarre combination of the two, but relativism requires that you contradict yourself. Under relativism it is simultaneously ok and not ok to mutilate a 12 year old girl.
About the only way relativism makes sense is if you take an absolutist stance that you should do whatever the local society says. And fuck that.
I may disagree, but I need more information.
Can I agree that a culture's behaviors are Moral1, but consider them reprehensible because I hold Moral2?
That is to say, you can understand that Morality tends to be subjective, but that doesn't mean that you have to accept a moral you find abhorrent.
The problem with that, as see it LMNO, is that you are using moral as a descriptive and prescriptive word at the same time (one is descriptive, the one you believe in is prescriptive). And since morality is to do with judging or telling us which actions are right or wrong, as opposed to telling us merely what others are doing, it would make sense to consider morality as a prescriptive word and set of actions. Saying they believe it is moral is descriptive, saying it is moral (even according to the beliefs of this particular group) is prescriptive.
So, there can be no nuance? If you believe in Morality, it's a binary position with your own brain as arbitrator?
I don't know. I'm just offering clever counterarguments.
heh. mission accomplished.
I still think we need to distinguish between morality as a learned behavior, and morality as a cognitive decision. The former cannot be discussed, as it is taken as a whole, while the latter can be parsed and debated.
Quote from: LMNO on December 16, 2009, 03:25:11 PM
I may disagree, but I need more information.
Can I agree that a culture's behaviors are Moral1, but consider them reprehensible because I hold Moral2?
That is to say, you can understand that Morality tends to be subjective, but that doesn't mean that you have to accept a moral you find abhorrent.
You can accept that its part of their moral system, and the action doesn't make them bad on an individual level because of that or somesuch, but you still have to say that either their system and/or your system is flawed.
Quote from: Hangshai on December 16, 2009, 03:33:07 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 16, 2009, 03:17:48 PM
Moral Relativism *can't* exist.
Moral - 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
synonyms: moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous, noble mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good.
Yup. Kinda sounds like you need a consensus to be moral. Maybe ethics can be more subjective, but since ethics are a group of MORALS, probably not again. So, I guess the REAL discussion is 'is fucking babies moral or immoral(immoral), and does believing it is moral make it so (no).' Probably again not so even if you Believe and not just believe.
Dictionary definitions of 'moral' have nothing to do with the concept of 'moral relativism', which has its own, very specific definition.
For that matter, dictionary definitions have nothing to do with anything, period, end of story. You're attempting to twist what I'm talking about into something else with a faulty appeal to authority.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on December 15, 2009, 03:30:11 AM
I didn't necessarily get the idea [that there's no such thing as morals] 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! :D
I never said
Quote from: Z³ on December 16, 2009, 11:39:45 AM
Fuck, can we talk about Transmet?
Here is what I gleaned it:
Spider Jerusalem represents integrity. The kind of integrity that speaks the truth, he puts forth his own flaws in doing so, but he's intelligent enough to exploit the weaknesses of his opponents to accomplish his own ends. Although, he's a chaotic personality (which endears him to us), basically he takes extreme risks in order to catch a few people off guard and the only thing that saves him is the integrity of his assistants.
Essentially, Spider is a representation of integrity itself.
I'm surprised that somebody would think that Transmet didnt have strong moral themes.
Spider represents them.
I guess that what I was trying to say when I first posted, and then elaborated later on, was that people can integrate anything they want into the learned behavior moral parts, as opposed to the morals that have to do with integrity, as evidenced by the Smiler in Transmet, which makes the idea of morals laughable. That was not to say that everything is acceptable, I just don't think the word "morals" covers these, because it also covers the stuff that is learned ideas that aren't an idea of "hey, this is bad by anyone's point of view," but more along the lines of "society tells me that thing a is good/bad, so it must be good/bad". If that makes any sense.
Next time I'll wait before I say anything, to make sure I got it all figured out. :x
funny, because it seemed like you were using the dictionary definition as a backup to say that 'you need a consensus to be moral'. Dictionaries are a pet peeve of mine though, so maybe that keeps me from seeing what you really intended.
You are of course free to use your own definition of 'moral', and its not a bad idea to define your meanings given that we have a few words that express a couple dozen different concepts, but I'm afraid I missed the point you were trying to make using that definition?
You can't remember? Just flip back a couple pages, everything is still here.
And why did you quote me if you were referring to what Roger/Soylent Green were saying?
The best way to stop is to, you know, STOP.
If you feel the need to get the last word, you're not being sincere in your wishes.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 16, 2009, 09:50:52 AM
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 15, 2009, 09:55:53 PMThat was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.
well, let's say this hypothetical tribe of babyfuckers exists, and let's say they are reasonably pleasant people otherwise. would you defend their morality?
would you say "well, it's their culture, and they were raised like that, so that's okay." or would you be more like "WTF THATS NOT RIGHT"
no wait, I know, how about we make it a littlebit more real.
Afaik, there is no hypothetical tribe of babyfuckers.
There are, however, tribes in Africa, (or was it Fundie ME Muslim places, I forgot) where they amputate the female's clitoris as the girl reaches puberty. Some of them are also in the business of partly sewing the vagina shut in order so they bleed more when they lose their virginity (I shudder to think about the hygiene problems when they have their period).
So, this is of course all in the name of religious morality, and the people were culturally raised to think this is perfectly okay cause it's the Will of God and That is How it's Done. Except for the women, I suppose, but the religious morality dictates that their opinion does not matter.
I think you can guess my question to you now.
Do you think--this is almost too retarded to ask, but I can understand it's a tough one to wrap your head around until you really realize what sort of fucking awful things monkeys can and WILL actually do to eachother--that this is relatively moral?
Would you not say, hey I don't fucking care what their religious beliefs are but that is just fucking wrong in one of the most absolute senses of the word Wrong?
Of course I would say it is wrong, but if that culture does it, obviously they do not think that it is so wrong, or they wouldn't do it, so am I right solely because I wasn't raised in their culture with their religion? I mean if that practice moved into the dominating culture it wouldn't be anymore "right" than it is now, but wouldn't we consider it to be right because we were raised to think that it is?
And Roger, I guess that I can accept that right and wrong aren't subjective if you say that something is "wrong" if it lowers the civilization's chance of survival, but I can't see any other way that it would be.
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 16, 2009, 10:42:57 PM
And Roger, I guess that I can accept that right and wrong aren't subjective if you say that something is "wrong" if it lowers the civilization's chance of survival, but I can't see any other way that it would be.
That's why you're a bad person.
Soylent Green: Pick one
A) Infant fucking is always wrong
B) Infant fucking is ok if your neighbors' approve
C) You don't know.
This is not a hard question.
Also, survival of the civilization is just one possible 'goal' of an ethical system (One that I'm guessing is not included in Roger's system).
It's a very bad choice of goal in my opinion, it rejects democracy for being unsustainable (the monkey will vote democracy away given the chance) and places things I consider to be unimportant (culture, the state) far above the individuals that make up the civilization, This probably makes me a no good traitor to my country and/or a terrorist, but I tend to think of people as more important than systems.
Quote from: Soylent Green on December 16, 2009, 10:42:57 PM
Of course I would say it is wrong, but if that culture does it, obviously they do not think that it is so wrong, or they wouldn't do it, so am I right solely because I wasn't raised in their culture with their religion? I mean if that practice moved into the dominating culture it wouldn't be anymore "right" than it is now, but wouldn't we consider it to be right because we were raised to think that it is?
I can understand why you think that, because I thought that way before as well. But I would ask you to think about it some more. There is no answer, btw.