Ethical Question... - Page 9

On November 24 2008 16:10 Loco wrote: brambolius, you shouldn't expect anyone to read that wall of text after writing that bullshit post that says "THERE IS RIGHT AND THERE IS WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO" the fact that floofy agrees says it all. you are wrong.

Becouse i say so?

lolwut?

and you don't need to read that wall of text, tl;dr; I love spanking, it's one of the greatest things ever.

On November 24 2008 15:48 Baal wrote: there is no such thing as a concience... What defines right and wrong? simple.. rational thinking should lead you do perfectly define right from wrong, however its hard to be rational when ur midn its all cramped in all the fake values embedded in you by society.

Its just a name.

edit: lol still on my buddies comp
ow ye and FUCK the romans

id buy it but i'd also sell it back to him for the same prize should he want it back
if he were a friend id also try to get him to just be happy with smoking hash and well try to supply him with a reasonable amount of that so he could endure the cravings better

On November 23 2008 22:13 TheTank wrote: 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.

On November 24 2008 17:43 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 24 2008 17:05 Baal wrote: Did society rules made sense in ancient greek?, did they make sense when marrying a 13yo girl was standard? they dont make sense i can name dozens of current values that are just plain retarded. Etiquette is retarded, age of concent is retarded, drug illegality is retarded, political correctness is retarded, nationalism is retarded, religiosity is retarded etc etc etc. You have a strong point on the fact that if everbody had true fee will they would miss use it since most people are plain retards tho, but after all, society is the conjunction of these retards, and they collectively "chose" these rules, so you can say in some way our current rules are the sublimation of this retard's ideology. wow a very nice post from baal

i'm not sure in what way you meant that...

in a way it kind of comes out as if you meant that you're surprised because Baal doesn't make insightful posts normally... which isn't true at all.

if you just said it in a totally objective way then my bad.

On November 24 2008 17:39 gymnast wrote: Show nested quote + On November 24 2008 17:05 Baal wrote: did they make sense when marrying a 13yo girl was standard? . what whas life expectancy in ancient greece?

well my answer to this is pretty like
split up
first of all, average age was very low compared to nowdays. but this was because of warfare and infant mortality, and the occasional plague. however, amongst people who survived beyond war-faring age, they lived long lives. most famous philosophers from ancient greece became more than 70, some lived into their 90s. (and, key point : males married girls whom were significantly younger, but males generally married only after they were done going to war. )

thus, life expectancy cannot be said to have any real bearing on the reason why in ancient greece, whether someone was post-prubescent or pre-pubescent was what defined whether they were marriable. because while the average life expectancy was significantly lower than in todays society, those who got married had a life expectancy not that much lower.

then a couple general points id like to make or whatever

morality regarding sex is, apart from incest (which genuinely is taboo, particularly parent-sibling incest, in virtually every society ever) obviously a societal construct, and almost entirely for religious reasons.
morality regarding murder has until reasonably recent times been that it is wrong to murder people within your own group. perfectly fine to murder people outside your group (hell, to continue with ancient greece: genocide was the norm, it was not only accepted by society but promoted by society. after athens had conquered the city-state Poteidaia in 429, they allowed the men, women and children to flee the city. the generals whom had allowed this to happen, were charged with "too much leniency" by the athenian court..) this is obviously also a societal construct: killing people within your own group of people is frowned upon because nobody wants to get killed; allowing this increases the chance of you getting killed. in ancient times, if you conquered a city, you wanted to get slaves out of it to maximize your revenue, hence you sold all the women and children to slavery. every man capable of wielding arms however, would be a potential threat to you in the future, hence they were all executed.

bah i kind of wanted to ramble on here but im going to stop to save us all the headache

Well Eri pretty much owned your argument gymnast, but quite frankly i think its going to be futile, reading between line when u say "drug prohibition is not retarded, bla bla bla is not retarded" i asume you are not prepared yet (or ever? hope not) to have this kind of discussion.

so back on track with the people who are beyond that....

I think true morality (good or bad) comes from rational thought, it doesnt take much brain power to realize there is nothing wrong that if ur buddy wants ur dick in his ass and both are willing to do it then it is morally fine to stick it in.

It takes a little bit of brain power to realize that the only reason currently its "wrong" for a 15yo girl/boy to fuck with a 30yo is because society dictates it to be, same reason why a 15yo boy fucking his hot teacher is a mother fucking hero for life and will not have any "emotional scars" when if the case is a young girl then she will shatter like glass.

However rational thoughts could lead to "wrong" doings because egoism can easily be rationalized, however we can see in complex animals that live in society that they do share, even when dont need to, even when it would have no repercusion in the status in their society, so i believe a the human in a pure form and not shaped by social morality has a natural tendency to be kind to others.

On November 24 2008 20:53 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On November 24 2008 17:43 asdf2000 wrote:   On November 24 2008 17:05 Baal wrote: Did society rules made sense in ancient greek?, did they make sense when marrying a 13yo girl was standard? they dont make sense i can name dozens of current values that are just plain retarded. Etiquette is retarded, age of concent is retarded, drug illegality is retarded, political correctness is retarded, nationalism is retarded, religiosity is retarded etc etc etc. You have a strong point on the fact that if everbody had true fee will they would miss use it since most people are plain retards tho, but after all, society is the conjunction of these retards, and they collectively "chose" these rules, so you can say in some way our current rules are the sublimation of this retard's ideology. wow a very nice post from baal i'm not sure in what way you meant that... in a way it kind of comes out as if you meant that you're surprised because Baal doesn't make insightful posts normally... which isn't true at all. if you just said it in a totally objective way then my bad.

yes he said it in a "zomg i cant believe he posted that" cuz we usually disagree in lots of stuff im always insightful, but i spend too much energy bashing on retards

brambolius your insistence that killing is universally wrong either ignores the fact that some societies in history have sanctioned killing for various reasons or assumes that members of those societies knew somehow that they were doing something wrong but did it anyway. In either case your opinion is extremely ethnocentric and self-righteous.

Baal you are totally right when you say that "true 'morality' comes from rational thought." Someone who feels an aversion to killing is probably on the surface aware that they will face punishment and therefore uncomfortable. On a deeper level they may be aware that the only thing that keeps them from potentially being killed themselves is the rule of law that exists within society. This is pretty basic Lockean philosophy. I guess the best definition of "morality" in this sense is the Golden Rule concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but even this requires society to ensure reciprocity. I disagree with you when you say that "the human in a pure form and not shaped by social morality has a natural tendency to be kind to others." I think that the natural tendency of humans and all animals is self-interest. In most cases it would not benefit a person to mistreat another, but if the person needed to for instance steal because he had no other access to food he would do it in a heartbeat.

On November 25 2008 05:32 TedHastings wrote: brambolius your insistence that killing is universally wrong either ignores the fact that some societies in history have sanctioned killing for various reasons or assumes that members of those societies knew somehow that they were doing something wrong but did it anyway. In either case your opinion is extremely ethnocentric and self-righteous.

WHERE DO PEOPLE GET THE IDEA THAT I SAID THAT KILLING IS ALWAYS WRONG?

jezus...

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

This is from your post which I originally responded to and although you don't explicitly say "killing is universally wrong" (someone else said that) it can be easily inferred, especially when combined with later statements of yours which indicate you do believe in universal "right" and "wrong".

Regardless, your belief in a universal morality and the implied assumption that this morality mirrors your own is, as I said, ethnocentric and self-righteous.

On November 25 2008 05:32 TedHastings wrote: think that the natural tendency of humans and all animals is self-interest. In most cases it would not benefit a person to mistreat another, but if the person needed to for instance steal because he had no other access to food he would do it in a heartbeat.

totally aggree.In fact even the most seemingly altruistic acts originate/find motivation from self interest,every person subconsiously decides if being kind/polite/obedient is +ev in a given situation and behaves accordingly.So when a king is not kind or polite to anyone he hasn't become corrupt by power,as the concept of everyone being fundamentally kind would imply.He has just lost motivation to be kind and perhaps he will find again some room for it when people start to rebel because of heavy taxes or whatever

=) messed a post up, my bad. sry.

On November 25 2008 05:52 TedHastings wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote: If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right This is from your post which I originally responded to and although you don't explicitly say "killing is universally wrong" (someone else said that) it can be easily inferred, especially when combined with later statements of yours which indicate you do believe in universal "right" and "wrong". Regardless, your belief in a universal morality and the implied assumption that this morality mirrors your own is, as I said, ethnocentric and self-righteous.

Okey my bad, i wasn't clear there.

what i meant to say was :torture and kill for obsolutely no reason but my own personal pleasure or gain.

that should clear things up

On November 25 2008 06:24 lebowski wrote: totally aggree.In fact even the most seemingly altruistic acts originate/find motivation from self interest,every person subconsiously decides if being kind/polite/obedient is +ev in a given situation and behaves accordingly.So when a king is not kind or polite to anyone he hasn't become corrupt by power,as the concept of everyone being fundamentally kind would imply.He has just lost motivation to be kind and perhaps he will find again some room for it when people start to rebel because of heavy taxes or whatever

You are not talking about "humans" here.

You are describing "animals", "beastmen", whatever the fuck u wanna call em.

I suppose you don't believe in evolution then?
animals and humans aren't related?

On November 25 2008 13:53 lebowski wrote: I suppose you don't believe in evolution then? animals and humans aren't related?

Now where would you get that idea?

yes i believe in evolution and yes animals and humans are related.

And I think that our morality doesn't come from rational thought only. It's instinctively in us too. Let's recall the 9yo girl example. She may be a satan himself and she may deserve all kinds of tortures and being murdered, but would any of you dare to do that to her?

On November 25 2008 17:15 daysare wrote: And I think that our morality doesn't come from rational thought only. It's instinctively in us too. Let's recall the 9yo girl example. She may be a satan himself and she may deserve all kinds of tortures and being murdered, but would any of you dare to do that to her?

....... and the dicussion drops 40iq points.

what 9 year old could deserve to be tortured and murdered?