Discourse 24: Monsters

[Trollax]

Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

[Out of the Wasteland]

Depends?  What's the backstory?

And you said you weren't a relaivist!  

True, but I clarified that later, by stating that, beyobnd a certain point, there are absolutes.  I DID make a point out of denying Ayn Rand's brand of moral absolutism, which is what I believe you are accusing me of.

Actually I was accusing you of being a relativist.

Everyone is, to SOME degree.  I think your original post carried it too far, though.

[Out of the Wasteland]

Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

Yep.  He is under no obligation to save me.   Pushing someone in IS a different matter.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Trollax]

Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

Yep.  He is under no obligation to save me.   Pushing someone in IS a different matter.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Well if you say you want to destroy the monster would you push Bush in?
What if said rabid fundamentalist pushed you in?

[Out of the Wasteland]

Let's pick this up tomorrow.  I'm beat.

Good night.

[Out of the Wasteland]

Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

Yep.  He is under no obligation to save me.   Pushing someone in IS a different matter.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Well if you say you want to destroy the monster would you push Bush in?
What if said rabid fundamentalist pushed you in?

Yes.

I'd drag him in with me.

Wasteland,
Never said he was a nice guy.

[Trollax]

Yes.

I'd drag him in with me.

Wasteland,
Never said he was a nice guy.

You miss.
Trollax,
Never intimated that he thought you were

[Guido Finucci]

1.  Of course he could.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  Or are you suggesting that the massacres in the deathcamps saved people?

3.  Not enough data.

Dude - hate to break it to you but you, like just about everyone, are a moral relativist. I put it to you that you can imagine blowing up a bridge and killing innocent people for what you percieve to be a higher cause but claim that the Nazis (who thought they had a perfect moral, higher cause) were certainly evil. That's moral relativinsm right there. Nothing wrong with it - it can be empowering. Thing about moral relativism is that it requires you to examine every choice you make, not just make one and blindly follow the same behaviour ever after. I think that's a good thing.

I think Trollax had a lot of good stuff in there about the personal relationship that each of us has with 'the Beast within' and the idea that morality isn't always an easy thing to hold.

I don't think that the existance Nazi death camps take anything away from this and I don't think Trollax being a moral relativist takes anything away form that either.

My two cents.


And now I'd better jump off and get some work done before I have to work late to catch up....

[DJ Zelian]

You're down in florida, on vacation. A Hurricane has just rolled in. It's category four. The storm surge is a good three meters high and the winds are over 100 knots. You're on your hotel balcony looking down at the flooded street. You hear a cry for help. There's a man floating down the flooded street towards the see. The swirling current turns his face towareds you and you recognise him. It's George W. Bush! You have a choice to make. Do you use the camera in your hand and snap the last possible photo of his life, floating away into the sea? Or do you tie the length of rope in your room to the balcony rail and try to throw it to him as he passes within five feet of your current position? Time is running out. do you win the pulitzer prize or save the most dangerous president in US history?
So... do you use black and white, or colour film?

Funny, yes. But deadly serioius for a moment. Do you save him?

I'd save him, and then lecture him until he wished I hadn't.

[Out of the Wasteland]

1.  Of course he could.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  Or are you suggesting that the massacres in the deathcamps saved people?

3.  Not enough data.

Dude - hate to break it to you but you, like just about everyone, are a moral relativist. I put it to you that you can imagine blowing up a bridge and killing innocent people for what you percieve to be a higher cause but claim that the Nazis (who thought they had a perfect moral, higher cause) were certainly evil. That's moral relativinsm right there. Nothing wrong with it - it can be empowering. Thing about moral relativism is that it requires you to examine every choice you make, not just make one and blindly follow the same behaviour ever after. I think that's a good thing.

I think Trollax had a lot of good stuff in there about the personal relationship that each of us has with 'the Beast within' and the idea that morality isn't always an easy thing to hold.

I don't think that the existance Nazi death camps take anything away from this and I don't think Trollax being a moral relativist takes anything away form that either.

My two cents.


And now I'd better jump off and get some work done before I have to work late to catch up....

EVERYONE is a moral relativist, to SOME degree.  However, if you can attach the same signifigance to murdering people out of ethnic hatred as you can to killing people when youhave no choice...

[Guido Finucci]

EVERYONE is a moral relativist, to SOME degree.  However, if you can attach the same signifigance to murdering people out of ethnic hatred as you can to killing people when youhave no choice...

Then what?

I may surprise you to know that not everyone is a relativist, no, not even a little bit. They argue that there should be one universal set of moral standards for everyone. In that case, they say that you see it as ethnic harted on the part of others vs. no choice on your part and that makes some killing okay and some killing bad. However, it is a pretty safe bet that the Nazis (in this case) rationalise the whole thing rather differently. In fact it is conceivable (although I really don't know for sure) that they see that it is them who have no choice and you could have simply called airstrikes on the tanks after they crossed the bridge without needles loss of life.

Both you and they have a certain moral compass in these situations but how are the rest of use supposed to evaluated your choices? How do we determine that your values are right and their values are wrong? How do we figure out that you are worthy of our approbation and they should be charged with war crimes? Or should it be the other way around?

Originally you were claiming an objective moral standard. The question now is - what is the objective moral standard under which we can all (yes, even the Nazis) evaluate our actions? (the first one you gave about not killing non-combatants under any circumstances seems to have been ruled out).

[Out of the Wasteland]

EVERYONE is a moral relativist, to SOME degree.  However, if you can attach the same signifigance to murdering people out of ethnic hatred as you can to killing people when youhave no choice...

Then what?

I may surprise you to know that not everyone is a relativist, no, not even a little bit. They argue that there should be one universal set of moral standards for everyone. In that case, they say that you see it as ethnic harted on the part of others vs. no choice on your part and that makes some killing okay and some killing bad. However, it is a pretty safe bet that the Nazis (in this case) rationalise the whole thing rather differently. In fact it is conceivable (although I really don't know for sure) that they see that it is them who have no choice and you could have simply called airstrikes on the tanks after they crossed the bridge without needles loss of life.

Both you and they have a certain moral compass in these situations but how are the rest of use supposed to evaluated your choices? How do we determine that your values are right and their values are wrong? How do we figure out that you are worthy of our approbation and they should be charged with war crimes? Or should it be the other way around?

Originally you were claiming an objective moral standard. The question now is - what is the objective moral standard under which we can all (yes, even the Nazis) evaluate our actions? (the first one you gave about not killing non-combatants under any circumstances seems to have been ruled out).

I don't see how it has been ruled out.  Could you please direct me to when THAT happened?

[Guido Finucci]

I don't see how it has been ruled out.  Could you please direct me to when THAT happened?

About the point that you said you'll kill non-combatants under some circumstances, provided it server the greater good. So, what is that greater good that their deaths served?

[Out of the Wasteland]

I don't see how it has been ruled out.  Could you please direct me to when THAT happened?

About the point that you said you'll kill non-combatants under some circumstances, provided it server the greater good. So, what is that greater good that their deaths served?

The prevention of the enslavement and/or death of the rest of the world, as outlined in your scenario.

The Nazis had no such justification.

[Guido Finucci]

The prevention of the enslavement and/or death of the rest of the world, as outlined in your scenario.
The Nazis had no such justification.

According to them, they did: the protection of the purity of the human race (and hence its continued survival).

Now, given that you are a moral relativist, how do you base a claim that I should take your word over theirs?