So, with all the ancient and modern religious and secular codes of conduct floating around, it seems not a single one has been able to get it right. I mean, sure, murder is bad and all, but one can do worse, if one was so inclined. So, me being me (see: pretentious douche with too much time on his hands), I have taken it upon myself to rearrange (and in many cases, outright eliminate) many of these rules, and put them in the proper order according to severity. Unlike something like the ten commandments, these are hardly as strict, and are less cut and dry. Think of them more as suggestions. (please, keep in mind there is a matter of degree involved, as well as situational modifiers that certainly influence the effectiveness of this arrangement)
1. Lying, spreading lies, spreading mistruths. These are the worst of all sins, crimes, etc.. The reason for this is The Lies ability to spread, in many cases, completely unnoticed. The Lie has the potential to effect the most people. The Lie leads to all other crimes, sins, etc.. Without the lie, there is no sin. Its ability to spread rapidly and to indeterminable reaches, coupled with the fact that it is so difficult to detect (even when lying to ones self) makes it the most dangerous.
2. Murder. Cold blooded murder is bad, but not as bad as the lie. The murder of an individual can effect many people, but no more than those directly involved with the victims life. If the victim is a major player in a certain political movement, or even a rock-star, their murder might be able to effect many people, but countries have crumbled, and religions have commited countless atrocities based on The Lie, therefore, murder remains second on the list.
3. Theft. Theft goes last, because it effects the fewest people in a negative or long-lasting way. Theft, in many ways, stems from The Lie. One must lie to ones self in order to commit theft. They must tell themselves that they are entitled to whatever it is that they are stealing, and then believe their own bullshit.
4. Of course, there are exceptions. The man who steals rice to feed his family. The man who kills for the safety of many (I can't think of any exceptions for The Lie). I think we can justify these actions like this: If one has no other option or course of action to save himself, his family, or other loved ones from death, or a condition that can lead to death, he has the right to commit murder or theft. ONLY if there is no other course of action (no lying to yourself to justify it).
5. And, there is a matter of degree. A Small Lie may not affect as many people as a Big Murder, but The Big Lie is always worse than the Big Murder. A Big Theft may be worse than a Small Murder etc..
When determining these things on the Big scale, The Lie is always worse. However, not everything remains on the Big scale. We can have Small lies, Medium Murders etc.. What's worse? Really, whatever effects the most people in a negative way for the longest amount of time (thus The Lie coming first. Mankind has seen many people come and go, and many objects coveted, but The Lies of centuries past still stick with us strong, and continue to negatively impact humanity, even after so many years).
:mittens:
Short, to the point, and catchy
In this system, is it considered 'bad' to commit suicide?
But I like it. It's extremely simple, yet not simplistic. Simple systems fail less often, and it's important to have an ethical system with as few paradoxes and failures as possible. Complex philosophical ethics fail far too often for my liking.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 08:54:09 PM
In this system, is it considered 'bad' to commit suicide?
It depends on how much of a negative impact it would have on any number of individuals. If you have an entire family depending on you, then yes.
I'd still put murder above lies, in the order of evil.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 09:02:17 PM
I'd still put murder above lies, in the order of evil.
I dunno. I would think that murder stems from lies, in the sense that you need to lie to yourself in order to convince yourself or others that the person in question deserves to die.
Okay, it actually makes a bit of sense to weigh suicide in terms of murder. Someone dies because of your actions, and it has all the same negative effects.
I've always been a fan of teleological ethics. Why say "X should never be done on principle", why not "I shouldn't do x right now because of possible outcome y."?
In many cases lying isn't as bad as killing, however. Therefore "Big Lies" should include things like "this war is justified and unavoidable".
Quote from: dimo on May 04, 2010, 09:04:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 09:02:17 PM
I'd still put murder above lies, in the order of evil.
I dunno. I would think that murder stems from lies, in the sense that you need to lie to yourself in order to convince yourself or others that the person in question deserves to die.
Um.
Okay, leaving now.
Dok,
Working on self-restraint.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 09:05:37 PM
Quote from: dimo on May 04, 2010, 09:04:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 09:02:17 PM
I'd still put murder above lies, in the order of evil.
I dunno. I would think that murder stems from lies, in the sense that you need to lie to yourself in order to convince yourself or others that the person in question deserves to die.
Um.
Okay, leaving now.
Dok,
Working on self-restraint.
Self restraint? LEMME HAVE IT!!!
I forget where I've heard it specifically, but this reminds me of the whole "theft is the only sin" idea.
If you lie, you steal someone's right to the truth.
If you murder, you steal someone's right to live.
It uses the same idea of lying being that which causes murder. So if you combine the two it becomes almost a cyclical or multidirectional model. Murder might be based from lies and theft, but it could stand alone as well.
ETA: The two books I saw it in were The Stand and The Kite Runner, I recall now.
Quote from: EoC on May 04, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
I forget where I've heard it specifically, but this reminds me of the whole "theft is the only sin" idea.
If you lie, you steal someone's right to the truth.
If you murder, you steal someone's right to live.
It uses the same idea of lying being that which causes murder. So if you combine the two it becomes almost a cyclical or multidirectional model. Murder might be based from lies and theft, but it could stand alone as well.
ETA: The two books I saw it in were The Stand and The Kite Runner, I recall now.
Words mean nothing. Just blend them all up until principles and values are all DOUBLEPLUS GOOD.
I hate liars, known too many compulsive, pathological types.
People capable of murder, or rather incapable of restraining themselves, are giving in to a very honest desire. It "solves the problem". People like to kill. They like seeing killing and do their part to justify it, legalize it whenever possible, institutionalize it. I don't think many murderers have to talk themselves INTO killing. More likely, people bury their desire to kill beneath lies of morality, adherence to avoiding taboo lines of thought, because given the choice, the freedom to do so without reprocussions many people would give in.
And maybe i'm fucked in the head, but I think that if you haven't met someone who brought out the very real and honest desire to strangle them...sorry lost my train of thought there. Just wait...is that my point? Is that cynical, to think that among 6+ billion people there's at least 1 person out there we would just rather not have around?
The lie is that SOME PEOPLE want that, and OTHER PEOPLE don't. We all have that capacity. What some of us lack is the humanity, the evolved primate state of being to say "Hey, that's not going to fix anything."
I'd sooner be lied to.
Quote from: dimo on May 04, 2010, 07:46:06 PM
(I can't think of any exceptions for The Lie)
That old Chestnut discussed in and about Kant, perhaps? Lying to a murderer about the location of his intended victim.
But Placid dingo does have a point, I'd sooner be lied to than killed. I find it hard to justify calling something the ultimate evil just because some other evils can stem from it. For instance we could also say that lies can stem from murder, very few people will freely admit to murder in today's society.
Nor do I think that murder always stems from lies, people may be wrong for thinking they should murder someone, but that does not necessarily mean they are lying to themselves/being lied to, it just means they have poor rationale.
Also, lies live in the heart of jokes, pranks, good art, bad art, and being polite to people you don't like.
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 02:06:19 PM
Also, lies live in the heart of jokes, pranks, good art, bad art, and being polite to people you don't like.
Don't forget literature, television, the news, etc... pretty much all forms of entertainment. Plus, what constitutes lying in this case. Is omission of truth the same? I'd still put murder at the top myself.
If Alty is correct and we're really just a bunch of savages who are inclined to murder (which I disagree with), then the Lie of organized religion is actually a good thing. Sure, it sprouted a bunch of mass murders perpetrated by the few in power or the few who think they're making a statement, but when taken as a whole, it would curb our murderous primate urges, since it turns out most people aren't murderers. As Dok and EoC also noted, you could always just move the words around. Taking EoC's example to murder, lying is the murdering of truth, theft is the murdering of rightful ownership.
Interesting how it's summed up at the end- that which is the worst has the greatest negative effect on the most people. Utilitarianism, but phrased in the negative.
Just to be clear, I used "art" in its most broad interpretation, so it would cover most forms of entertainment.
But that's just an aside.
I'm interested in the idea that, "if a large amount of humans are murderous savages, then lying with regards to religion is a good thing, if it makes them less savage."
Quote from: dimo on May 04, 2010, 07:46:06 PM
So, with all the ancient and modern religious and secular codes of conduct floating around, it seems not a single one has been able to get it right. I mean, sure, murder is bad and all, but one can do worse, if one was so inclined. So, me being me (see: pretentious douche with too much time on his hands), I have taken it upon myself to rearrange (and in many cases, outright eliminate) many of these rules, and put them in the proper order according to severity. Unlike something like the ten commandments, these are hardly as strict, and are less cut and dry. Think of them more as suggestions. (please, keep in mind there is a matter of degree involved, as well as situational modifiers that certainly influence the effectiveness of this arrangement)
1. Lying, spreading lies, spreading mistruths. These are the worst of all sins, crimes, etc.. The reason for this is The Lies ability to spread, in many cases, completely unnoticed. The Lie has the potential to effect the most people. The Lie leads to all other crimes, sins, etc.. Without the lie, there is no sin. Its ability to spread rapidly and to indeterminable reaches, coupled with the fact that it is so difficult to detect (even when lying to ones self) makes it the most dangerous.
2. Murder. Cold blooded murder is bad, but not as bad as the lie. The murder of an individual can effect many people, but no more than those directly involved with the victims life. If the victim is a major player in a certain political movement, or even a rock-star, their murder might be able to effect many people, but countries have crumbled, and religions have commited countless atrocities based on The Lie, therefore, murder remains second on the list.
3. Theft. Theft goes last, because it effects the fewest people in a negative or long-lasting way. Theft, in many ways, stems from The Lie. One must lie to ones self in order to commit theft. They must tell themselves that they are entitled to whatever it is that they are stealing, and then believe their own bullshit.
4. Of course, there are exceptions. The man who steals rice to feed his family. The man who kills for the safety of many (I can't think of any exceptions for The Lie). I think we can justify these actions like this: If one has no other option or course of action to save himself, his family, or other loved ones from death, or a condition that can lead to death, he has the right to commit murder or theft. ONLY if there is no other course of action (no lying to yourself to justify it).
5. And, there is a matter of degree. A Small Lie may not affect as many people as a Big Murder, but The Big Lie is always worse than the Big Murder. A Big Theft may be worse than a Small Murder etc..
When determining these things on the Big scale, The Lie is always worse. However, not everything remains on the Big scale. We can have Small lies, Medium Murders etc.. What's worse? Really, whatever effects the most people in a negative way for the longest amount of time (thus The Lie coming first. Mankind has seen many people come and go, and many objects coveted, but The Lies of centuries past still stick with us strong, and continue to negatively impact humanity, even after so many years).
These aren't actually 5 suggestions - they are 3 suggestions and 2 get-out clauses.
and can I have a Medium Murder with a side of fries and hold the relish . . .
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 03:26:26 PM
I'm interested in the idea that, "if a large amount of humans are murderous savages, then lying with regards to religion is a good thing, if it makes them less savage."
I can't speak for all religions, but I'm under the impression that they all pretty much say killing is bad (maybe with a few exceptions depending on circumstance). If this is the case, then how has religion spawned murder? My take would be that the lie is used as an excuse for the murder. Or maybe in the case of religion and murder, lying about the lie to justify the murder. Either way, murder is the root cause of the evil, and the lie an accessory.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 05, 2010, 03:31:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 03:26:26 PM
I'm interested in the idea that, "if a large amount of humans are murderous savages, then lying with regards to religion is a good thing, if it makes them less savage."
I can't speak for all religions, but I'm under the impression that they all pretty much say killing is bad (maybe with a few exceptions depending on circumstance). If this is the case, then how has religion spawned murder? My take would be that the lie is used as an excuse for the murder. Or maybe in the case of religion and murder, lying about the lie to justify the murder. Either way, murder is the root cause of the evil, and the lie an accessory.
From what I can see, most of them say that killing
one of your own is bad, but killing
the other is often blessed by the diety.
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 03:32:06 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 05, 2010, 03:31:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 03:26:26 PM
I'm interested in the idea that, "if a large amount of humans are murderous savages, then lying with regards to religion is a good thing, if it makes them less savage."
I can't speak for all religions, but I'm under the impression that they all pretty much say killing is bad (maybe with a few exceptions depending on circumstance). If this is the case, then how has religion spawned murder? My take would be that the lie is used as an excuse for the murder. Or maybe in the case of religion and murder, lying about the lie to justify the murder. Either way, murder is the root cause of the evil, and the lie an accessory.
From what I can see, most of them say that killing one of your own is bad, but killing the other is often blessed by the diety.
That would be lying about the lie. The ten commandments don't say "thou shalt not kill... unless they're not Jewish, then it's aight". With Christianity, Jesus basically said that it doesn't matter, people are people and are equal in God's eyes. You don't see many rabbis and priests out there advocating murder of non-Jews and non-Christians. They consider it all the same thing. Maybe you get a fundamentalist every so often, but they seem more to say, "Bwahaha, Jesus hit you with a natural disaster because there are gay people somewhere"
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 03:32:06 PM
From what I can see, most of them say that killing one of your own is bad, but killing the other is often blessed by the diety.
That, IMO, is where ethics stems from anyway, originally ethical rules would only apply to your tribe, or what have you. Sure you may not going around murdering members of other tribes, but that is more for your own, and your tribes, interest (not having another group specifically hunting you down for revenge). This possibly scaled up to larger civilisations easier by use of religions.
Quote from: Rumckle on May 05, 2010, 03:49:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 03:32:06 PM
From what I can see, most of them say that killing one of your own is bad, but killing the other is often blessed by the diety.
That, IMO, is where ethics stems from anyway, originally ethical rules would only apply to your tribe, or what have you. Sure you may not going around murdering members of other tribes, but that is more for your own, and your tribes, interest (not having another group specifically hunting you down for revenge). This possibly scaled up to larger civilisations easier by use of religions.
It also presupposes an underlying drive to murder those regarded as "not us" and protect those regarded as "us". It seems interesting [to me anyway] that the primary targets of actual murders are not predominantly random "others" but are actually individuals who are known to us.
[/quote]
It also presupposes an underlying drive to murder those regarded as "not us" and protect those regarded as "us". It seems interesting [to me anyway] that the primary targets of actual murders are not predominantly random "others" but are actually individuals who are known to us.
[/quote]
Great point- whenever someone ends up dead the cops question the people close to them. The killer usually ends up being a family member or lover.
Twid, look up King David.
Anointed by God, his first act that brought him to greatness and proved he was the LORD'S chosen one was to kill Goliath.
Later, he slaughtered the Syrians, "every male in Edom", Moab, and Ammon, and basically invented the idea of genocide.
He did this with the blessing of YHVH. It's in 1 and 2 Samuel, if you need citations.
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 04:15:42 PM
Twid, look up King David.
Anointed by God, his first act that brought him to greatness and proved he was the LORD'S chosen one was to kill Goliath.
Later, he slaughtered the Syrians, "every male in Edom", Moab, and Ammon, and basically invented the idea of genocide.
He did this with the blessing of YHVH. It's in 1 and 2 Samuel, if you need citations.
Yeah, the Old Testament is weird like that. Yahweh's track record seems to indicate that the Ten Commandments were a moment of inconsistency for him. Nevertheless, they do set a precedent for later moral reasoning, at least in that religion. Plus, when you're King, it's easy to say that God told you to do it. You could also point out that the other numerous laws outside of the Ten Commandments encouraged the Jews to kill other Jews, from the severity of the punishments. It neatly allows you to put up a bunch of rules that you attribute to God but gives God a cop out if you break the rule and he doesn't punish you personally. It's the tribe's responsibility, and attribute victory in war to God (and bad times due to the rampant sinfulness of the culture). Let's suppose for a moment that Moses, whether or not he actually talked to his god, made up the rules himself as a given. He probably did so with good intentions for social cohesion. As MMIX noted you're more likely to be killed by someone you know. And it's also not a good idea to kill a foreigner, since that might be disturbing a bee's nest when you're at a disadvantage. So leave it vague. Thou shalt not kill. Then, noticing that he had the numbers and the power, he added a bunch of other rules that God told to him, at a conveniently later time, which allowed him to dole out harsh punishments and conduct aggressive warfare (which David did).
Not saying that that's not a glaring inconsistency in religion. Just pointing out that the Ten Commandments are a good lie, and people have an easier time memorizing 10 rules and using that as a moral guide than 613. People generally favor simplicity. If your religion says killing is wrong, you'll take that as a given, and that's good enough for you. Nuances are for the clergy to advise you on. (Nowadays, the clergy in question would say, yeah, wrong, end of story.)
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 02:06:19 PM
Also, lies live in the heart of jokes, pranks, good art, bad art, and being polite to people you don't like.
Yeah, I had thought about this while I was waiting for someone to point out how wrong the OP was :lol:
I don't know why I keep thinking about ethical/moral codes and systems. I know there's no way to put them into words without failing completely. What is it about people that make us repeatedly bang our heads against brick walls?
I suppose that, assuming of course, even if the lie is the beginning of all wrongs doesn't make it the "worst." I do still feel that the lie is the most dangerous, not neccessarily to the individual, but to humanity as a whole.
Quote from: MMIX on May 05, 2010, 03:30:03 PM
These aren't actually 5 suggestions - they are 3 suggestions and 2 get-out clauses.
and can I have a Medium Murder with a side of fries and hold the relish . . .
The get out clauses are suggestions.
And, would you like to super-size that?
Quote from: dimo on May 05, 2010, 04:42:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 02:06:19 PM
Also, lies live in the heart of jokes, pranks, good art, bad art, and being polite to people you don't like.
I suppose that, assuming of course, even if the lie is the beginning of all wrongs doesn't make it the "worst." I do still feel that the lie is the most dangerous, not neccessarily to the individual, but to humanity as a whole.
I see where you're coming from. I just have a hard time thinking of the lie as anything more as a facilitator for other, worse things that are more dangerous.
Quote from: dimo on May 05, 2010, 04:42:00 PM
[
Quote from: MMIX on May 05, 2010, 03:30:03 PM
These aren't actually 5 suggestions - they are 3 suggestions and 2 get-out clauses.
and can I have a Medium Murder with a side of fries and hold the relish . . .
The get out clauses are suggestions.
And, would you like to super-size that?
Yeah, 1,2 & 3 are "suggestions" because they all key into discrete areas Lying, Murder, and Theft. 4 & 5 are actually the same point teased out, and are not suggestions in the same sense as the first three; they are modifiers of the first three, not standalone concepts. So the up-side is you have
reduced the 10 commandments not just by half but by over two thirds - NB if you want to use that line in your advertising feel free. /tongue-in-cheek
Quote from: MMIX on May 05, 2010, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: dimo on May 05, 2010, 04:42:00 PM
[
Quote from: MMIX on May 05, 2010, 03:30:03 PM
These aren't actually 5 suggestions - they are 3 suggestions and 2 get-out clauses.
and can I have a Medium Murder with a side of fries and hold the relish . . .
The get out clauses are suggestions.
And, would you like to super-size that?
Yeah, 1,2 & 3 are "suggestions" because they all key into discrete areas Lying, Murder, and Theft. 4 & 5 are actually the same point teased out, and are not suggestions in the same sense as the first three; they are modifiers of the first three, not standalone concepts. So the up-side is you have reduced the 10 commandments not just by half but by over two thirds - NB if you want to use that line in your advertising feel free. /tongue-in-cheek
They are the suggested modifiers.
No need for getting into semantics, the whole thing's fucked anyway. I can call it whatever I want at this point. How about "The Three Dirigibles of Hephaestus, and Their Two Assistants?" or how about "Some Things dimo Thought About When he Was Bored." Maybe "The Doctrine of Cheese?"
I love the sound of "The Three Dirigibles of Hephaestus, and Their Two Assistants"
Quote from: dimo on May 05, 2010, 04:42:00 PM
No need for getting into semantics, the whole thing's fucked anyway. I can call it whatever I want at this point. How about "The Three Dirigibles of Hephaestus, and Their Two Assistants?" or how about "Some Things dimo Thought About When he Was Bored." Maybe "The Doctrine of Cheese?"
That. Has a good ring to it.
Hey, Dimo, looks like you have created a market ^ ^ ^ - now just give us the product :wink: