Ethical Question... - Page 7

On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote: the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right. If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right.

Actually this is 100% false because morality is a social construct. You only think torturing and killing is wrong because society has determined it to be so. For instance how do you know that posting messages on an internet forum is not morally wrong? There is no ultimate moral code because there is no God, and to suggest that there is is ridiculous. Everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but most just choose to accept the dictates of their society.

SON OF A BITCH.
So because i was leaving town as he called me to see if i was interested in his deal of guitar hero III w/ a cordless guitar for $30, we agreed on making the actual physical purchase sunday night (right now). I just got off the phone with him and he was robbed last night, they took the CD but not the controller. I was at a store earlier and they weren't selling gtIII... so this is now a -EV deal since i wouldn't pay more than about 15 more the controller.

In the back of my mind i believe he just sold it to someone else since he couldn't wait and is just making that shit up, since all druggies are lying thieving scumbags anyway.

fml.
run sooo bad.

ahahahaha fml for not gettin GH3? xDDDD

On November 23 2008 23:29 gymnast wrote: ahahahaha fml for not gettin GH3? xDDDD

nooo fml for missing out on a great deal.

On November 23 2008 21:48 TedHastings wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote: the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right. If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right. Actually this is 100% false because morality is a social construct. You only think torturing and killing is wrong because society has determined it to be so. For instance how do you know that posting messages on an internet forum is not morally wrong? There is no ultimate moral code because there is no God, and to suggest that there is is ridiculous. Everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but most just choose to accept the dictates of their society.

First of all god has nothing to do with anything.

secondly, morality isn't a social construct.

people who say this are either covering for their actions (there is no wrong or right, so i can do anything),
or they are trying to feel better about themselves in relation to the world (there is no wrong or right, but i'm going to be a good boy anyway).

fact is that THIS is bullshit.

There is WRONG
and there is RIGHT

every person knows if something is wrong or right but will make up a thousand excuses for themselves and the outside world to justify their shit.

If you think basic morals and values are decided by men then you are nothing but an animal.

On November 24 2008 06:01 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2008 21:48 TedHastings wrote:   On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote: the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right. If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right. Actually this is 100% false because morality is a social construct. You only think torturing and killing is wrong because society has determined it to be so. For instance how do you know that posting messages on an internet forum is not morally wrong? There is no ultimate moral code because there is no God, and to suggest that there is is ridiculous. Everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but most just choose to accept the dictates of their society. First of all god has nothing to do with anything. secondly, morality isn't a social construct. people who say this are either covering for their actions (there is no wrong or right, so i can do anything), or they are trying to feel better about themselves in relation to the world (there is no wrong or right, but i'm going to be a good boy anyway). fact is that THIS is bullshit. There is WRONG and there is RIGHT every person knows if something is wrong or right but will make up a thousand excuses for themselves and the outside world to justify their shit. If you think basic morals and values are decided by men then you are nothing but an animal.

you are in no position to talk with that attitude because you are wrong in everything you say in this post.
In fact I'll challenge you to find one thing that all people have always agreed that it's wrong and I'd also like to challenge you to name the source of right and wrong,if it's not from god or mankind as you said

that it's wrong to kill is pretty universal

that it happens doesnt disprove the universality of it

you should listen to Chomsky, not advertising the craziness of foucault

lebrowski he didn't say it wasnt from mankind, he just said it wasn't a social construction.

On November 24 2008 09:12 SpasticInk wrote: that it's wrong to kill is pretty universal that it happens doesnt disprove the universality of it

there are millions of examples where people think it's right to kill someone,it all depends on the circumstance.
That's if we only only look at humans killing each other,animals of different species killing for survival is nature's law O_o

On November 24 2008 09:25 SpasticInk wrote: he didn't say it wasnt from mankind, he just said it wasn't a social construction.

On November 24 2008 06:01 brambolius wrote: If you think basic morals and values are decided by men then you are nothing but an animal.

here he implies that humans are more than evolved cunning animals and that they didn't decide what's wrong or right.So I ask,who did?

i agree with brambolius, i think people generally knows when theyre doing good actions and bad actions
sure there are exceptions but....

On November 24 2008 09:13 SpasticInk wrote: you should listen to Chomsky, not advertising the craziness of foucault

I've read Chomsky and he used to be a real hero in my eyes for years.I don't see how this is relevant though.
He assumes creativity is a fundamental characteristic of human nature,I see it as a biproduct of a smart animal's natural quest for power,how is morality involved in this?

also there's this common misconception that people always feel guilty when they kill or that they should if they didn't etc Ever cared to think that some people have different views on morals than you do? Assuming that these guys are mistaken and that you have found the universal moral code that is absolutely correct reveals a mass shortage of critical thinking.

Ever watched little kids cut a spiders legs or put a lizard on fire in a bottle and then laugh hysterically? Is it because they are evil? No, they just feel superior to these beings and couldn't care less about them,their viewpoint is going to change through social interaction as they grow up...For the same reason you can't say an emperor is objectively "evil" because he doesn't give a shit about killing people,this guy has learned that he is a god that controls lesser beings and he acts in that manner.Let's stop thinking like the world spins around our little selves for a moment and understand that things are complicated.

everyone has there own moral code, its as simple as that. take dexter for example. how ur family raises u and the events in ur life determine what u see as right and wrong

well i merely pointed out that it could be whithin human nature, what's right and wrong as well.

morality has been debated, and is debated by philosophers of all time, and i doubt we will settle down this question in a forum discussion.

yes there is circumstances where people think they have the right to kill, but don't you think the world could agree that during certain circumstances it's wrong to kill, and that could be applied and understood by all of us? which makes it moraly wrong?

i also think that you have to think critically about how you see things, but it's also a danger to see everything in a relativistic way as well. there are certain aspects of human beings that is true, and why can't that be applied to morality as well?

On November 24 2008 11:15 SpasticInk wrote: well i merely pointed out that it could be whithin human nature, what's right and wrong as well.

suggesting creativity is within human nature doesn't oppose the fact that people of different social status,cultural environment, race etc etc are constanly fighting each other,whereas the hypothesis that they have the same moral code deep within is.

yes there is circumstances where people think they have the right to kill, but don't you think the world could agree that during certain circumstances it's wrong to kill, and that could be applied and understood by all of us? which makes it moraly wrong?

there's a difference between commonly applied/accepted/enforced morals and universal morals that have been 'revealed' to humans in their true form.This is all much easier to realise if you follow the path that formed western society's morals through history and aknowledge all the different and conflicting influences through which it took shape.

i also think that you have to think critically about how you see things, but it's also a danger to see everything in a relativistic way as well. there are certain aspects of human beings that is true, and why can't that be applied to morality as well?

Because we're either looking at things in a critical way or we don't.
The fact that it would be nice for morality to be hidden in our DNA and all we have to do is look deeply doesn't make it true,on the contrary,it probably should make us more inclined to believe that it's false just because people have the tendency to unquestionably believe things that are interesting,convenient and soothing.
The danger of seeing things in a critical way is the danger of being exposed to a truth you can't handle,but perhaps the only reason one can't handle it is because he made silly assumptions about things in the first place.

On November 23 2008 21:48 TedHastings wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote: the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right. If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right. Actually this is 100% false because morality is a social construct. You only think torturing and killing is wrong because society has determined it to be so. For instance how do you know that posting messages on an internet forum is not morally wrong? There is no ultimate moral code because there is no God, and to suggest that there is is ridiculous. Everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but most just choose to accept the dictates of their society.

This is 100% right, taking the values out of society is retarded, but 99% of people do : <

Ok where to start.....

things like this are better discussed in person...but i'll give it a shot

"there are millions of examples where people think it's right to kill someone,it all depends on the circumstance."

"Think" and "circumstance" are the key words here.

"That's if we only only look at humans killing each other,animals of different species killing for survival is nature's law O_o"

Humans are mostly outside of "nature's law", they are a unique being when compared to all other life forms on this planet.

"In fact I'll challenge you to find one thing that all people have always agreed that it's wrong and I'd also like to challenge you to name the source of right and wrong,if it's not from god or mankind as you said"

How's about causing grief/pain for no reason but personal pleasure? Now thats just one, but probably the most fucked up one.
What is the source of "right and wrong"? Some say its your conscience (spelling lol?), and i guess thats probably the best name for it. You can shut it up, lock it up, even (try) to kill it, but that won't change the rules of "morals" or "right and wrong" or whatever you wanna call it.

"also there's this common misconception that people always feel guilty when they kill, or that they should if they didn't etc. Ever cared to think that some people have different views on morals than you do?
Assuming that these guys are mistaken and that you have found the universal moral code that is absolutely correct reveals a mass shortage of critical thinking."

Its quite obvious to me that alot of people have different VIEWS on "morals". And thats just the thing. Having a one sided view on "morality" makes anything
justifiable (spelling lol?). When in reality it is not.
Also denying a "universal moral code that is absolutely correct" reveals a mass overdose of not-so-critical thinking. You can make everything fit into your "picture"
if you just pick some pieces of the puzzle and leav other ones in the box.

"Ever watched little kids cut a spiders legs or put a lizard on fire in a bottle and then laugh hysterically? Is it because they are evil? No, they just feel superior to these beings and couldn't care less about them,their viewpoint is going to change through social interaction as they grow up...For the same reason you can't say an emperor is objectively "evil" because he doesn't give a shit about killing people,this guy has learned that he is a god that controls lesser beings and he acts in that manner.Let's stop thinking like the world spins around our little selves for a moment and understand that things are complicated."

Yes i have watched that shit and i knew it was fucking wrong. my friend loved cutting worms in half and i'm telling you he KNEW it was wrong too but he got all excited about it, a "rush" if you will.
Just an example. Was he or i evil? No off course not. We were young and we fucking around. We were kids mind you, k i d s.

An emperor doesn't have to be evil, but he's quite surely an asshole. What gives him right? The masses under his controll give him right. Becouse in the end off the day he himself is nothing but one man, probably frail or fat, and could probably be killed by any random man.
Yet people are slaving and fighting while this guy is taking it ez,
"living" "the good life". When it comes down to it this is a bullshit bubble.

"Let's stop thinking like the world spins around our little selves for a moment"
No shit, you got me on this one ^^
"and understand that things are complicated."
Yes they are, becouse our bullshitbubble has gotten pretty massive and crusty over time.

"suggesting creativity is within human nature doesn't oppose the fact that people of different social status,cultural environment, race etc etc are constantly fighting each other,whereas the hypothesis that they have the same moral code deep within is."

i'm not sure if i'm getting what ur saying here. Yes, creativity is in human nature, literally. Our bodies can simply do alot of stuff becouse of how they work. Limbs, feet, hands, fingers, ears and so on.
But the fact that these races, cultures blablabla are constantly fighting eachother does surely not kill the "hypothesis" that they have the same "moral code deep within".

"there's a difference between commonly applied/accepted/enforced morals and universal morals that have been 'revealed' to humans in their true form.This is all much easier to realise if you follow the path that formed western society's morals through history and aknowledge all the different and conflicting influences through which it took shape."

Idd it follows a path but in "morality" there is no path to follow. Its a wide open expanse. The fact that society's "morals" have been shaped only speaks against itself,
why "fix" something if it isn't broken. And this path hasn't been "revealed", it has been forcefed, to humans, getting them away from their true form.

"The fact that it would be nice for morality to be hidden in our DNA and all we have to do is look deeply doesn't make it true,on the contrary,it probably should make us more inclined to believe that it's false just because people have the tendency to unquestionably believe things that are interesting,convenient and soothing."

That fact wouldn't be convenient and soothing, it would be extremely fucked up.
And what do you mean "look deeply"? "Morality" or Right or wrong or whatever is the simplest shit ever. It only gets complicated when you start bullshitting around.

"The danger of seeing things in a critical way is the danger of being exposed to a truth you can't handle,but perhaps the only reason one can't handle it is because he made silly assumptions about things in the first place."

See if you can find anything on "objective relativism" on the web, i would love to know . I made it up and its actually pretty "critical" .

phewzies lol

ok brambolius there are some reasons why we won't be able to reach a mutual understanding

-you believe humans are 'outside of nature's laws' when in fact nothing is outside of nature's laws and humans just happen to be more complex than the rest of earth's species

-you create an almost metaphysical feature that defines the sense of wrong or right and you call it conscience,implying that it is the same for everyone and that people who act in an 'evil' way just misinterpret it/ try to not listen to it. Whereas in fact what a person understands as right or wrong changes greatly as he grows up,according to his age AND surroundings. Even gender plays a role in it.This is very common knowledge,try a few searches on the work of Piaget (30's),Kohlberg(70's),Gilligan (80's) to see their findings/failures concerning kids and the way they evolve their ethics and how much this is influenced by the society they grow up in.

-you seem to think that morality is a very simple matter (!) too. Well that would have been great for all those guys struggling to make sense of what is moral concerning all the latest technological achievements,conflicting 'human rights' etc. Let me try to put it this way; if you don't lay back on god's wisdom to create the moral code which benefits humanity,this is the most difficult task humans have to face when/if they work collectively

-you can't empathise and escape your own view on the world. 'Causing grief/pain for no reason'? Do you think the Vikings felt that way? How about the Romans with their wars? Is the search for power reason enough?
You think that your western -influenced greatly by christianity- beliefs ever applied to these people? How can your moral sense ever condemn them when it was historically impossible for them to think the way you do(even if they wanted to,which I doubt) about things. What does the fact that a child hurts worms naturally tell you about our inclinations as a species? Does it say that we were meant to think it's bad to hurt what we consider as lesser beings for no reason? Newsflash: every mammal on the planet does it when they start exploring their strength. Why should your friend feel ashamed about cutting worms in half when he was young,what's next? Feeling guilty about musterbating?

pg7 tl;dr


we are learning about this in ethics. most ancient philosophers (socrates, plato, aristotle) all believe some sort of the same thing which is: if you are born with a brain, even if you are mentally retarded, you still know the difference of what is right and what is wrong. even animals, however they are much much less intelligent. before i get flamed for telling you that animals know the difference between right and wrong, what i am talking about is an animal knows it has to eat, and it knows it has to get shelter, the basics for survival, so it knows the difference of right/wrong on a much smaller scale.

my ethics teacher showed how they mathematically proved how they were right, but i 9-table stars during his class. obv i didn't get much out of it haha.

(back then they mathematically proved it because 2+2=4 which is right and will never change, thus if they could prove it with math than it had to be right b/c math is never wrong if you have the right answer...)