This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
I think this (just about) belongs in this thread and not the other, but I forgot to mention omission and commission as confounding variables. Humans have two-three relevant cognitive biases in determining ethical behaviour. First is the kin selection bias, which may lead to Dunbar's number. Basically, we care more about our family members than strangers. We also care more about individual accounts of suffering than widescale suffering. The second or third bias is that we find committing immoral acts more abhorrent than omitting moral actions. So we think it's worse to run over a child than to do nothing while a child starves (modified by the previous two factors, we think an individual account of a parent letting their child starve is pretty shocking).
As for anarchy being bad: that's really due to a widespread propaganda campaign from the statists. There are some very cogent arguments in support for anarchy. On the left, there's Krotopkin and Bakunin and on the right there are people like Nozick and Proudhon.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Here is the question: "How moral is this rule: "There are no absolute rules except this rule"?"
Like, you won't murder innocents, however, if you absolutely have to in order to ensure your own survival you don't have to feel guilty about it.
I don't agree with it. I think there are some things about morality that are not grey, but then again I believe in the Bible, which is explicitly against some things, and explicitly for other things.
Love, for example, is entirely and wholly moral. Pride would be the opposite.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Here is the question: "How moral is this rule: "There are no absolute rules except this rule"?"
Like, you won't murder innocents, however, if you absolutely have to in order to ensure your own survival you don't have to feel guilty about it.
I don't think most people would consider murdering innocent people to save their own life morally acceptable. Otherwise, people could murder others for their organs when they need a transplant. Killing someone who was bent on ending your life, sure. Making a choice between two groups of people, one of which will have to die, in order to save the most lives- fine. But killing someone else to save your own life, who did nothing to endanger you? No way. It's an understandable decision sure- and many people who thought they were better than that might make that choice in the heat of the moment- but not a morally justifiable decision.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Actually, we tend to agree on most things about what is moral and immoral. We also tend to agree that certain things are immoral regardless of people's opinion on them. The only thing we don't agree on are whether things that are borderline (like 17-year-olds and sex, or two options that are both better than doing nothing but each have negative consequences) and where the choices are not as clearly defined, are considered a grey area or completely removed from morality altogether.
However, you feel like dragging it into a fight over semantics most of the time, and refuse to actually address the points raised in favor of making inflammatory statements to redirect the discussion away from the fact that you lose the semantics argument, so it never even gets far enough for us to discuss the actual issues. Too bad- if you were willing to even approach what I'm saying for what it is, and not go off on a rant that has nothing to do with what we're talking about every single time, I'd probably be backing up some of your arguments.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gnomerdon
yep, this rule works if you can make it happen and believe there's nothing wrong with it.
Post by
MyTie
yep, this rule works if you can make it happen and believe there's nothing wrong with it.
Sometimes you are a woman.
MyTie 1
face 0
Post by
gnomerdon
there goes ur bias against women again!
face 2
Post by
MyTie
there goes ur bias against women again!
face 2
Uhm.. huh?
Let me break it down for you. Your rule states:There are no absolute rules except this ruleWhich means that to say that you are always a man is not true. It would also mean that you are not always a woman. Technically, you are not always one or the other, and nor could you say that you are not "always both when you are not one nor the other". So, when you are not a woman, and you are not a man, and you are not neither nor both, what are you? Perhaps a troll?
So, if your rule is the only rule that is true, then you cannot accept any absolutes, even self evident ones which there exists empirical evidence for. 1+1 does not always equal two, in your book.
Anyway, there was definitely no statement against women. I think you weren't understanding me.
Post by
gnomerdon
i was getting the impression that you were attacking me for feminism. rofl
i come from a more basic and simpler approach than urs. many things that you say are really misunderstood sometimes.
yes,
facesmasher said:
There are no absolute rules except this rule
my rule is the only rule that is true because i say it is. how do i enforce that rule so that the entire population will believe it? control, fear, and power. without any of it, it's nothing. but with it, it can create monsters like the roman empire, Nazism, mass genocide, america..... rofl.. the one rule to rule them all.
just like how religion has gripped millions of people. it is the supreme rule in their head, and no matter what you say about their beliefs, they will never change.
all humans posses a small form of selfishness, with that in mind, if a person had a vision for world peace, it would be very different from another person's view. despite both having good intentions, the other one will view the other person being wrong and corrupted.
where i'm getting at is, there are no rules. and when you want to make a rule and enforce it, you will have to go through bloodshed, go through hell and back, and come back alive.
the only rule is that you are alive, and you have choices, and you have a limited amount of time. choices that you believe in, then making rules for animals like us will not bold well.
we are all territorial, even in our beliefs. even if it's waaaaaaaaay off the spectrum, we will never forsake ourselves for another view. like abortion, homosexuality, or picking psyduck over charmander.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Considering this is the morality thread and he was answering a question about moral rules, it's possible he was referring to moral rules there. As opposed to, the set of all conceivable statements.
Murder is always right.
Murder is not always right.
Can both of these statements be false?i was getting the impression that you were attacking me for feminism. rofl
i come from a more basic and simpler approach than urs. many things that you say are really misunderstood sometimes.
yes,
facesmasher said:
There are no absolute rules except this rule
my rule is the only rule that is true because i say it is. how do i enforce that rule so that the entire population will believe it? control, fear, and power. without any of it, it's nothing. but with it, it can create monsters like the roman empire, Nazism, mass genocide, america..... rofl.. the one rule to rule them all.
just like how religion has gripped millions of people. it is the supreme rule in their head, and no matter what you say about their beliefs, they will never change.
all humans posses a small form of selfishness, with that in mind, if a person had a vision for world peace, it would be very different from another person's view. despite both having good intentions, the other one will view the other person being wrong and corrupted.
where i'm getting at is, there are no rules. and when you want to make a rule and enforce it, you will have to go through bloodshed, go through hell and back, and come back alive.
the only rule is that you are alive, and you have choices, and you have a limited amount of time. choices that you believe in, then making rules for animals like us will not bold well.
we are all territorial, even in our beliefs. even if it's waaaaaaaaay off the spectrum, we will never forsake ourselves for another view. like abortion, homosexuality, or picking psyduck over charmander.
Since I have no idea what any of this means, I'm just going to answer with "blue".
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
OZ- he means that killing someone under X circumstances is objectively right, and killing them under Y circumstances is objectively wrong. There's no contradiction in that argument.
You can say, for instance, that depending on the circumstances (age, consent, any intoxicants, marital or relationship status, etc) sex can either be morally wrong, or morally fine, and that's a valid statement. Under some circumstances it's fine, under others it's wrong.
Post by
MyTie
The point isn't that they are both right or wrong, but that they both can't be simultaneously wrong, which means that face's rule is hereby disproven. It was an absolutely anyway.
Most
absolutes are easily disproven.
Post by
OverZealous
Right, sorry - got that post all wrong. I'll delete it.
Post by
MyTie
You deleted it and broke the thread...
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
