I am starting to become increasingly convinced that anybody who uses a moral argument in a conversation is not as smart as someone who does not. A lot of the debates on this forum could be a lot shorter and much more intelligent if people just ignored moral and ethical concerns outright.For example, the "atheism vs. theism" topic is just 84 pages of constant moralizing, and nobody really seems to have answered the question anyway.
In short, the reason why bringing morality into a political debate is pointless is this:
Ethics is essentially a form of aesthetics. Arguing whether or not genocide is wrong is pretty much similar to arguing whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. In the former, the only thing that you could really conclude is that genocide is a political expedient, and in the latter, the only thing you can really conclude is that both flavors are forms of ice cream. Accept those differences and move on.
In the case of genocide, it is in fact necessary to achieve a people's political goals. The Americans benefited from killing off the various native tribes; the Turks and Greeks succeeded in creating stable nation-states by wiping out or expelling their minority groups; the Russians forced ethnic Germans who had lived in Eastern Europe for centuries, killing around 500,000 of them; and so on. Since virtually every group of people on this planet has benefited from some form of genocide at some point or another, condemning future genocide is hypocritical.
But on the other hand, advocating for the genocide of a particular race or people is rather silly, because nobody will really care. It would be akin to advocating the killing of all people who did not like vanilla ice cream.
Everyone on this board "wants" certain things to happen. I, for one, might want to see the United States rendered into a backward, third world country and a puppet state of the glorious People's Republic of China; more people here would like to see it the other way around. Debating which would be best is pointless because we both want different things; in essence we are simply trying to trick each other into accepting our viewpoint when trying to exchange them -- the entire point of discussion -- would be much more worthwhile.
For example, in the Libya thread I am not so much sympathetic of Gaddafi as I am simply expressing my disdain for the stupidity of people in not realizing what is actually going on, and then proceeding to provide an explanation therefor. I don't really support anybody. I have no reason to. I'm just an observer. If I were to tell you what I wanted, I would just be writing speculative fiction.
I don't know, maybe it would be nicer if people would stop moralizing and have an intelligent conversation for once. Also, it would be kind of funny for me if people misread this thread as a justification for genocide and call me a fascist, too. It would only confirm my suspicions about the critical thinking ability of others.
Wittgenstein actually explains that ethics and aesthetics are the same thing. So essentially you guys are perpetuating a problem that has been solved for almost a century lol.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Proposition 6.421:
"It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words.
Ethics is transcendental.
(Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same."
I don't know, sometimes morals are necessary. Sure, a LOT of people take it too far, or are incapable of making arguments without ethics, but I mean, morals kind of keep this planet a bit happier in my opinion.
Too bad it's never the people in power who have them.
Also, genocide sucks. I know you're not advocating for it or anything, but I don't want to be on the sharp end of a "Kill all white people in California" campaign. Just saying.
Want to play League of Legends?
The most epic thread on the forums.
If you say you've seen it all, you're about to see something new.....Probably.
A lot of people do not distinguish between their morals and factual information though which is what makes debating them seem so futile. You rely on evidence and data while they rely on an opinion they haven't justified with true information. They can say and claim whatever they feel like while you research and analytically dissect their arguments because you're actually interested in what the data indicates. However, "whatever can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
On the internet, this puts you at a great disadvantage. They can claim anything, post a link that supposedly proves their point and you must read through it before you can reply. They also have all the time in the world to make up arguments as do you of course. I often wonder how these people would hold up in live debate where one must meticulously research their point and learn about what they are trying to prove before they step into the arena. On the internet, you never truly have to learn what it is you're trying to prove while in an actual debate you sure as hell better know what you're talking about and be able to back it up with reliable data on the spot.
Also, you are an evil fascist for thinking genocide is ok. Hitler was evil. He also really loved vanilla ice cream and you mentioned vanilla in your argument, therefore; I can conclude that you are Hitler.
At 2/27/11 11:34 PM, basherboy357 wrote: I don't know, sometimes morals are necessary.
Well, yeah, of course morals are necessary. It's a system of valuation. Killing or stealing someone, for example, is generally regarded as a bad thing for a number of different reasons -- one of the foremost being that it will probably end up in negative repercussions for yourself in the short or long run.
The problems begin when you look at morality as an end rather than a means.
That is, laws, morals, ethical codes of conduct, procedure, et cetera, are all there to facilitate the business of things within a particular context. When this context breaks down (i.e. there is little method or reason to enforce it -- in fact the two are really the same) the rules follow suit. This is why illegal downloading, marijuana and underage drinking are discouraged merely perfunctorily. In summary, rules are means to an end, where the end is that things run smoothly
However, when morality is viewed as an end, people start getting caught up in fantasies of utopia, of a "better world" for people to live in -- in complete nonsense. It is not important whether everyone is treated fairly or kindly or whatever, but rather, whether you are, so that you (or your family, friends, society, whomever you care about) are in a better position.
Sure, a LOT of people take it too far, or are incapable of making arguments without ethics
Which is why they are stupid -- which is why concepts like moral relativism (which the liberals use to espouse "tolerance") should be presupposed in the first place and morality should be left out of an argument entirely. Unless you are with like-minded people of course -- where your moral arguments are really just code words so you can conspire behind a cloak of jargon to realize your agenda.
but I mean, morals kind of keep this planet a bit happier in my opinion.
In the sense that they keep things running smoothly -- see above.
Too bad it's never the people in power who have them.
Well of course not, because having them would make things not go smoothly for them.
Also, genocide sucks. I know you're not advocating for it or anything, but I don't want to be on the sharp end of a "Kill all white people in California" campaign. Just saying.
Yeah, it sucks if you're on the receiving end lol.
At 2/28/11 01:02 AM, DylanJames wrote: A lot of people do not distinguish between their morals and factual information though which is what makes debating them seem so futile.
So in other words, people fail to distinguish between opinion and fact, which is essentially the same as being unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
So in short, yes, moralizers are delusional.
You rely on evidence and data while they rely on an opinion they haven't justified with true information. They can say and claim whatever they feel like while you research and analytically dissect their arguments because you're actually interested in what the data indicates. However, "whatever can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
It is more than that though. I "present the data" and "make the case" simply to make the case -- I am not trying to even make a profound political statement or take up a particular stance. That is, it is not a case of what should be, but a case of what is, what will be, what may be, or if I am supremely bored, what might have been.
On the internet, this puts you at a great disadvantage. They can claim anything, post a link that supposedly proves their point and you must read through it before you can reply.
Yeah... which is why I kind of hate discussions on this board from time to time.
They also have all the time in the world to make up arguments as do you of course. I often wonder how these people would hold up in live debate where one must meticulously research their point and learn about what they are trying to prove before they step into the arena.
Most of them would probably be mediocre at it. I have a couple of friends with whom I have occasional debates and generally you have to stick to the main point or people get bored. It's easy to get sidetracked here.
Also, you are an evil fascist for thinking genocide is ok. Hitler was evil. He also really loved vanilla ice cream and you mentioned vanilla in your argument, therefore; I can conclude that you are Hitler.
lol
Whatever logic is unable to dictate, ethics and morality must be the judge for determining what is right and wrong.
For example, If one were to suggest vanilla ice cream was better than chocolate, one could ask the popuation of the planet that had tasted both which one they thought was better. Then compare the results and use that as a logical reasoning as to what is better. Or, from a different approach, scientificaly anilyze both flavours and discover which one exibits a stronger phycological feeling of pleasure within the human brain. I could think of a host of different ways of determining which one is better. If vanilla is better than chocolate, through logic.
Pushing this a bit further into the stronger domains of world issues, such as genocide, it is fairly easy to logically dictate genocide is bad. Whether mass murder by itself seems ethically and morally wrong is beside the point if you look to understand the logical problems with it. As far as i'm concerned with murder, the killing of someone is the elimination of whatever potential energy they may have contained in life. Say I was to kill someone, anyone, at random, whoever they may have become in life is destroyed completely. Say that person had the potential energy to become a doctor and save the lives of hundreds of people. logic dictates that the survival of a species is the paramount purpose of every living thing on in the universe. Therefore, killing that man was wrong because is lessend the chances of him/her continuing the survival of the human race. The same principal goes for genocide, only at a larger scale. Logic dictates right and wrong very clearly.
However. Logic is not perfect because human beings are imperfect. Logic should not be the only variable when determining distinctions of right/wrong, better/worse. The entire reason ethics and morality exist is because logic fails when the issue extends past human comprehension. Issues today like euthanasia, abortion, DNA manipulation, gay marriage etc. all push the barriers of human logic. Some things just do not sit right with us when our logic finds an answer. For example, if I were to use logic to say "abortion is wrong". Whatever my reasoning be, perfect or not, I would be denying some person somewhere a chance they may have at a normal life. A twelve year old girl raped and impregnated with a pair of abusive parents who told her they would "kill her if she ever got pregnant" could use nothing more than a quick abortion to save her life. Me saying that it is wrong just like that, no matter my logic, just doesn't sit right with me. So I think about what morals and ethics I know, and after deep consideration, I may just find the right answer.
Point is, if you were deny ethics and morality entirely you could cause a lot more harm to yourself and others than if you welcomed them with logic and used them to answer our questions. You say that they cause nothing but a huge amount of discord and chaos in arguments, I understand that very well but have some to accept it as a part of who we humans are, bickering idiots.
One more thing, this is Newgrounds. If you want logic and order, go to Harvard or something.
P.S- pardon my spelling, if I made any mistakes it's because my computer has somehow gone to a french keyboard and I am having trouble getting it back to normal.
At 2/28/11 01:30 AM, awardedstraw wrote: Whatever logic is unable to dictate, ethics and morality must be the judge for determining what is right and wrong.
Wittgenstein had you covered there too. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." All discussion of ethics and morality is meaningless and pointless.
For example, If one were to suggest vanilla ice cream was better than chocolate, one could ask the popuation of the planet that had tasted both which one they thought was better. Then compare the results and use that as a logical reasoning as to what is better.
It doesn't matter if you survey a million or a billion people, it is entirely subjective. Besides most of them would probably be idiots and I would have little reason to consider their opinions anyway.
Or, from a different approach, scientificaly anilyze both flavours and discover which one exibits a stronger phycological feeling of pleasure within the human brain.
There are an infinite number of dimensions to pleasure and suffering -- moreover, the approach would still be based upon a subjective criterion that boils down to "which form of pleasure is better" -- which is also entirely subjective and therefore it would be completely pointless.
Pushing this a bit further into the stronger domains of world issues, such as genocide, it is fairly easy to logically dictate genocide is bad.
Yeah, just like you "proved" it was possible to determine whether chocolate or vanilla was better lol. Good luck with that.
Whether mass murder by itself seems ethically and morally wrong is beside the point if you look to understand the logical problems with it.
What logical problem? It worked fine for plenty of people, Hitler excluded (since he was an insufferable moron with a silly mustache anyway).
As far as i'm concerned with murder, the killing of someone is the elimination of whatever potential energy they may have contained in life.
Which works to my advantage if, say, that potential energy was directed towards killing me. In a broader sense, a group that is a threat to the security and stability of another group, such as a nation, similarly benefits from killing other, certain groups of people.
Say I was to kill someone, anyone, at random, whoever they may have become in life is destroyed completely.
So what? If I don't know the person at all I have no reason to care. Simple as that.
Say that person had the potential energy to become a doctor and save the lives of hundreds of people.
Say that person was a psychopath or the next Hitler! Yeah, it works both ways too, genius!
logic dictates that the survival of a species is the paramount purpose of every living thing on in the universe.
No, that would be the will to power, whereof survival is merely a byproduct.
Therefore, killing that man was wrong because is lessend the chances of him/her continuing the survival of the human race.
We aren't exactly running out of people here. We live in a profusion of humanity; if one, ten, a hundred, a thousand, or a million people die today the world will still go on as if nothing had really happened. In fact, his "potential benefit to humanity" is not only wholly unpredictable, from inference one can conclude that it is probably negligible.
I could be the smartest human alive but if I am hit by a bus tomorrow it would not matter; I would be dead and the point would be moot.
The same principal goes for genocide, only at a larger scale.
Nope -- I just explained why the life of an individual does not really matter in the long run; the same concept applies to entire groups of people.
Humanity is just a meaningless abstraction in the long run anyway. If computers somehow achieved sapience and found a way to survive without the meat creatures and eventually exterminate them all, they would essentially take the place of humanity -- in essence they would be "humanity" and the systematic genocide of the biological world would merely be transitional.
Logic dictates right and wrong very clearly.
What you just used was clumsy empiricism, not logic.
However. Logic is not perfect because human beings are imperfect.
Logic is completely fine, and humans cannot be "perfect" or "imperfect" in any meaningful sense because you used that word without any context whatsoever.
Logic should not be the only variable when determining distinctions of right/wrong, better/worse.
You are getting this backwards. "What is better" and "what is worse" should be used to determine what is expedient, not the other way around.
The entire reason ethics and morality exist is because logic fails when the issue extends past human comprehension.
Logic doesn't "fail," people fail to realize that ethics and morality make no logical sense.
Issues today like euthanasia, abortion, DNA manipulation, gay marriage etc. all push the barriers of human logic.
No, they don't. They don't even challenge any "ethical issues" because there are none. Here, let me solve all these for you in simple one-word answers.
Euthanasia? Yes. Abortion? Yes. DNA manipulation? Yes. Gay marriage? Yes. Unless I'm in power and I simply want to make the gays miserable, then no.
Some things just do not sit right with us when our logic finds an answer.
Yeah, that's called cognitive dissonance, funny, isn't it/
For example, if I were to use logic to say "abortion is wrong".
Then you would be utterly misusing logic.
I may just find the right answer.
Right answer lol.
Point is, if you were deny ethics and morality entirely you could cause a lot more harm to yourself and others than if you welcomed them with logic and used them to answer our questions.
There are no "right answers" to people's problems, nor are we in any position to solve them for the most part. And others? Why should I care about others? People only care about others because they need to (out of a societal or biological imperative) or want to (by virtue of our own consciousness).
One more thing, this is Newgrounds. If you want logic and order, go to Harvard or something.
Finding logic and order at Harvard, lol.
I know how you feel. I was just on another forum. It was fairly right wing in comparison to what I'm used to. Not like Memorize & company, I mean actually right wing with liberals in the minority. A couple of these individuals wanted to talk about the point at which a life form can be considered a person and given rights; all under the umbrella of trying to prove fetuses had the right to life (but by the way we weren't allowed to talk about abortion, because it would be a "distraction").
When I tried to tell them that their entire debate was based on a moral judgement, and hence irrelevant. After 60 back and forth posts about why I didn't think it was necessarily true that a fetus deserved to be protected, it came down to me trying to get them to identify which definitions they were using and realizing that they were assuming all "persons" had a "right to life." Bringing up the death penalty and such couldn't get them past that the fact that this was a moral judgement that assumed all people deserved to be alive that were alive.
What the hell?
Also, their forum sucks, you're not allowed to say fuck. The level of profanity allowed in a debate gives you a pretty good judgement about how tight people are.
It seems easy though.
But saying it's a good idea to shoot kids who don't obtain a certain grade on their SATs is kind of iffy. logically this can be taken to be very reasonable. You make it so the dumb people are eliminated from society and kids are pushed to excellence.
One could argue that SATs are not enough to assess a person's value, but I'm sure that I can find people with good SATs scores to do the jobs those others would have done if they had lived.
Pure logic is not a thing I would strive for.
RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor
At 2/28/11 06:50 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Not like Memorize & company, I mean actually right wing with liberals in the minority.
Stupidity comes in two forms I guess. The right is not all that much different from the left.
A couple of these individuals wanted to talk about the point at which a life form can be considered a person and given rights; all under the umbrella of trying to prove fetuses had the right to life (but by the way we weren't allowed to talk about abortion, because it would be a "distraction").
When I tried to tell them that their entire debate was based on a moral judgement, and hence irrelevant.
Which, of course, is the correct answer. Abortion is not really a question about taking life -- since people do that all the time -- but a question of not offending certain people's sensibilities.
After 60 back and forth posts about why I didn't think it was necessarily true that a fetus deserved to be protected, it came down to me trying to get them to identify which definitions they were using and realizing that they were assuming all "persons" had a "right to life."
Bringing up the death penalty and such couldn't get them past that the fact that this was a moral judgement that assumed all people deserved to be alive that were alive.
What the hell?
And once you removed the assumption, all related arguments collapsed. This is the problem with making assumptions in ethics. It is a house of cards. You start with some fundamental propositions -- for example, that people have the ("inherent") right to life, liberty, and so on -- and then you start coming to other lofty conclusions based upon them. You take down one little card and quickly you are able to take the whole thing down.
Rights are created and protected to serve our own interests, not because they are inherent. They are ideas -- empty fictions -- created to deal with the context of society. Arguing about the "philosophical" or "ethical" aspects of abortion is nonsense; you are arguing about nonsense and there is simply no point to doing it except to trick stupid people to believe you are right and the opposition is wrong.
Once you stop thinking about morals, all these so-called issues disappear and you are only left with real questions like, "is abortion beneficial or useful?" -- but even THEN you can get an infinite amount of answers from this simply because the question is a subjective one.
Also, their forum sucks, you're not allowed to say fuck. The level of profanity allowed in a debate gives you a pretty good judgement about how tight people are.
I actually never use that word now on the BBS. I don't really care if others do, of course, but I like to see whether I can get through a discussion without having to use it.
At 2/28/11 07:45 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Pure logic is not a thing I would strive for.
It has nothing to do with "pure logic" or logic at all -- it is simply avoiding meaningless banter.
At 3/1/11 12:48 AM, KemCab wrote:
At 2/28/11 07:45 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Pure logic is not a thing I would strive for.It has nothing to do with "pure logic" or logic at all -- it is simply avoiding meaningless banter.
Kind of a hypocritical position to take for a regular at politics.
RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor
At 2/28/11 06:50 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: A couple of these individuals wanted to talk about the point at which a life form can be considered a person and given rights; all under the umbrella of trying to prove fetuses had the right to life (but by the way we weren't allowed to talk about abortion, because it would be a "distraction").
Abortion is a life choice. It's funny because attempted suicide is considered illegal, which is also a life choice.
Abortion has at least been made halfways sanitary and halfways accepted, yet the stigmas surrounding the taking of self remain. Why?
When I tried to tell them that their entire debate was based on a moral judgement, and hence irrelevant. After 60 back and forth posts about why I didn't think it was necessarily true that a fetus deserved to be protected, it came down to me trying to get them to identify which definitions they were using and realizing that they were assuming all "persons" had a "right to life." Bringing up the death penalty and such couldn't get them past that the fact that this was a moral judgement that assumed all people deserved to be alive that were alive.
The death penalty is a penalty for betraying the laws of the land, whatever they happen to be. What are the "and such" that you mention? Self-defense killing? Wartime? Each circumstance has it's own set of limiting rules and codes, the same as abortion. If anyone truly has a "right to life", wouldn't the most defenseless be foremost?
I'm just trying to rationalize the opponents who aren't here to defend themselves. Nothing personal.
At 3/1/11 10:19 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:
Abortion is a life choice. It's funny because attempted suicide is considered illegal, which is also a life choice.
Abortion has at least been made halfways sanitary and halfways accepted, yet the stigmas surrounding the taking of self remain. Why?
I wonder what status suicide realy has in that. Of course, if by taking your own life you also threaten to take others with you (example: setting your house on fire) or delay public service (jumping in front of traffic) then that is totally acted against. But I don't think you get thrown in jail for trying to jump of a high building.
But then still, I guess on a personal basis it's heavier when a person kills himself and leaves behind people that liked him, then an abortion where nobody really cares whether the baby is born or not.
RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor
At 3/1/11 10:19 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: The death penalty is a penalty for betraying the laws of the land, whatever they happen to be. What are the "and such" that you mention? Self-defense killing? Wartime? Each circumstance has it's own set of limiting rules and codes, the same as abortion. If anyone truly has a "right to life", wouldn't the most defenseless be foremost?
If you're comfortable with the taking of lives on certain circumstances, perhaps you shouldn't be referring to life as a right. You should call it a privilege.
Pro-choice v. "privilege of life"
At 3/1/11 10:00 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Kind of a hypocritical position to take for a regular at politics.
In a sense, virtually all politics and most of language is meaningless banter (see General) but the only way you can have an intelligent conversation about it is to get through it.
Ethics is essentially a form of aesthetics
You assume that everyone agrees that ethics is a form of aesthetics. If they do not, ethical debates seem far more reasonable. Please provide some justification for this idea that ethics is just a matter of taste.
Politics is ethics in a sense. Its what we 'feel' is right which usually engages a series of self interested or apathetic notions, and then you run into all this criteria (most prominently economic) you have to fill out as a means to achieving those goals.
Not that I do economics or politics. I am just an extremely evaluative philosopher. Speaking purely from an inductive premise; pessimism is necessary, any sort of 'truth' in an action must first transcend intuitive thought, though intuition as an argument must not be ignored if we wish to express 'totality' in our reasoning, quantum our thoughts in a sense.
Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.
At 3/1/11 02:09 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Politics is ethics in a sense. Its what we 'feel' is right which usually engages a series of self interested or apathetic notions, and then you run into all this criteria (most prominently economic) you have to fill out as a means to achieving those goals.
Not that I do economics or politics. I am just an extremely evaluative philosopher. Speaking purely from an inductive premise; pessimism is necessary, any sort of 'truth' in an action must first transcend intuitive thought, though intuition as an argument must not be ignored if we wish to express 'totality' in our reasoning, quantum our thoughts in a sense.
And that's why I consider any argument, nonsense because it doesn't agree with our series of beliefs is nonsense in itself if it only discredits any hypothesis because it is incapable of explaining it. Two hypothesis brought up from two systems of values may disagree but then any overall outcome only becomes a value judgement, which is why I feel we need to always express a totality of reasoning.
Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.
At 3/1/11 02:01 PM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote:Ethics is essentially a form of aestheticsYou assume that everyone agrees that ethics is a form of aesthetics.
I am not assuming anything. I am simply making a statement of fact.
If they do not, ethical debates seem far more reasonable. Please provide some justification for this idea that ethics is just a matter of taste.
For the same reason that a preference for vanilla over chocolate is just a matter of taste. In the case of aesthetics, what you are essentially saying is that "I would prefer my sundae to be vanilla, not chocolate"; in that of ethics, you are essentially saying, " I would like my world to be this way, not that way." For others who do not want the world to be that way, what you are essentially saying is irrelevant to them and vice versa.
This mutual irrelevance renders any discussion of ethics pointless except as a means of tricking people into thinking that your values should be their values as well.
At 3/1/11 02:09 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Politics is ethics in a sense.
Politics is a continuation of war by other means. Well, politics and war are pretty much the same thing: a struggle to shape the future. In politics -- more specifically modern politics -- the goal is to trick as many stupid people into believing your ideology is right.
It is useless to debate ethics in the ANALYSIS of politics; that is all we are doing. We are not activists or politicians on this forum, we are observers.
At 3/1/11 03:26 PM, KemCab wrote: It is useless to debate ethics in the ANALYSIS of politics; that is all we are doing. We are not activists or politicians on this forum, we are observers.
All oh so true. The way I see it.
Politicians are capitalists. They objectively capitalise on other peoples interests in order to come into power. Once they're in power they start imposing the values that they and the people believe is right, but the people seem to only believe that once the politicians have only capitalised on their thoughts and ideas and imposed their own value judgements which interrelate with the thoughts and ideas that they used to come into power on the first place.
Our value judgements when we vote are the product of the self interest of the politicians in that sense.
Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.
The level of self interest in the rest of the world is more astounding than you can ever imagine, without thinking hard about it.
Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.
I think you can rationally say that it is immoral to commit genocide. To deprive people of life is immoral and unethical because it's something you wouldn't want to happen to yourself. I'm a pretty moralless zombie but I can appreciate the rational justification to behaving in a moral manner. One just needs to assume that things matter and that other people matter just as much as you do, and then it's simply a case of rationalising what is best for yourself and is either beneficial or neutral to the community. And yes, this means we all probably have committed immoral actions - no shit. We might even do so tomorrow.
It's like ice-cream. If vanilla ice-cream was made by making elderly people smile, and chocolate ice cream was made by genocide on the Jews, vanilla ice-cream would easily be the best ice-cream. And I say that as someone who prefers chocolate.
At 2/28/11 01:04 AM, KemCab wrote: However, when morality is viewed as an end, people start getting caught up in fantasies of utopia, of a "better world" for people to live in -- in complete nonsense.
Ever read Brave New World?
Want to play League of Legends?
The most epic thread on the forums.
If you say you've seen it all, you're about to see something new.....Probably.
At 3/1/11 03:41 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: The level of self interest in the rest of the world is more astounding than you can ever imagine, without thinking hard about it.
Well of course. All human beings are ultimately self-interested. It is unnatural not to be. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply dissimulating it.
At 3/1/11 03:48 PM, Earfetish wrote: I think you can rationally say that it is immoral to commit genocide. To deprive people of life is immoral and unethical because it's something you wouldn't want to happen to yourself.
This argument sounds pretty silly when you substitute "deprive people of life" with "have anal sex. On a more serious note, however, there are lots of reasons why this argument doesn't really hold.
It is sometimes a necessity to deprive another of life, e.g. in self defense or self preservation. It doesn't really matter if you wouldn't want it to happen to yourself either; the only thing that matters is that it doesn't happen at all. And as I had stated earlier, a moral or legal code is merely a necessary byproduct of any sort of community or society.
I'm a pretty moralless zombie but I can appreciate the rational justification to behaving in a moral manner.
The only valid justification for adhering to any sort of moral code is that we live in a society that runs by them. If we did not, there would be no reason to do so.
One just needs to assume that things matter and that other people matter just as much as you do
And here is where the argument falls apart: they're not. People are not equal -- some people matter more than others -- just like chocolate and vanilla do not taste equally good. We do not really see everyone as equal either: we value our friends and family more than some random stranger or acquaintance.
(And by that reasoning, the various races and ethnic groups are not equal either. But note that all of this is strictly relative -- at the very other end of the spectrum, the racialists have this backwards -- there is no way to objectively demonstrate superiority, it is all subjective.)
it's simply a case of rationalising what is best for yourself and is either beneficial or neutral to the community.
Ultimately, it boils down to what is best for achieving your aims and drives, i.e. your will to power. We associate with a community because it is best for our aims and drives, and (as long as it does not directly conflict with them) assume what is beneficial or neutral to the community is beneficial to us by proxy. Morality is a tool, not an end in itself. It's a system of valuation -- a general guidebook, not a strict rulebook, if you will -- and when it is inappropriate for a particular circumstance, you drop it.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." -- Asimov
It's like ice-cream. If vanilla ice-cream was made by making elderly people smile, and chocolate ice cream was made by genocide on the Jews, vanilla ice-cream would easily be the best ice-cream. And I say that as someone who prefers chocolate.
But suppose I'm not a Jew, and I really love chocolate. Then chocolate would be the best ice cream.
At 3/1/11 06:55 PM, KemCab wrote:At 3/1/11 03:41 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: The level of self interest in the rest of the world is more astounding than you can ever imagine, without thinking hard about it.Well of course. All human beings are ultimately self-interested. It is unnatural not to be. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply dissimulating it.
Thats why I like the ideas of Agent centred morality. Though it may not be as infinitely plausible as self interest is because all actions can be considered self interested in some way, I think Plato has the right idea with the charioteer analogy. It just intuitively makes sense, and the idea of achieving Eudaimonia also seems sensual when you consider how saddening it would be to have achieved all your lifes goals and have nothing left. Though thats all purely subjective.
Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.
Debate's purpose is to get your opponent to see things from your point of view with facts and logical reasoning. For example, I could say your argument against genocide is flawed because of the logical fallacy ad hominem (to the man); you made this by stating it would be hypocritical to say genocide is wrong do to the fact you said other countries have founded themselves by committing these acts. Just because they committed these acts doesn't mean genocide is any less wrong.
As for an appeal to morals, they are against logic. However, just because this isn't logical doesn't mean you can say there isn't a reason genocide is wrong, and morals are not part of aesthetics as they are not part of beauty, art, or taste. Morals can come from logic and facts just as much as they can be abstract.
When arguing or debating about anything, I do not like opinions as they carry no weight in my mind; only fact and the reason it stems from means anything. If you think a certain way then you should be able to back it up with facts and logic otherwise what you think may (or may not be) flawed. The point of this statement means there is margin for error, and if you keep building upon things with possible error, you can get compound error.
At 3/1/11 11:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 3/1/11 10:19 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: The death penalty is a penalty for betraying the laws of the land, whatever they happen to be. What are the "and such" that you mention? Self-defense killing? Wartime? Each circumstance has it's own set of limiting rules and codes, the same as abortion. If anyone truly has a "right to life", wouldn't the most defenseless be foremost?If you're comfortable with the taking of lives on certain circumstances, perhaps you shouldn't be referring to life as a right. You should call it a privilege.
I'll call it whatever I like, thank you very much. While I am comfortable with the notion of taking lives under certain sets of circumstances, the fact of the matter remains that the right to life is guaranteed until those rights are forfeit under the aforementioned circumstances. Taking lives outside lawful jurisdiction is going to get you into TONS of trouble... for robbing someone of their right to life. Liberty and freedom aren't privileges either, though both may be sacrificed through certain actions.
A fetus takes none of those actions.
For example, when an intruder enters a persons home and threatens great bodily harm, the intruder has forfeited his immediate right to life if the homeowner exercises HIS right to protect his own. This is called a right to self-defense (read: life), and in this particular scenario, trumps the intruders (forfeited) right to life.
What has a fetus done to forfeit their life? Or are you arguing that since a fetus is dependent on the mother for the majority of pregnancy, she holds sole jurisdiction over the potential (even viable?) life of her child?
I don't understand what you are trying to say to me, I guess.
Pro-choice v. "privilege of life"
What?
And yes, the same analogy can be applied to pregnancies that threaten the woman's life as well. She has a right to abort found in Roe v Wade when her life's in danger.
The morality is the same in this case alone. The problem is that nothing is ever so simple as that, and extenuating circumstances may drive an unthreatened woman to consider abortion, even for so simple a fact as the father is a piece of shit.
Is it ethical to fuck a guy and abort his baby on the basis he's a dirtbag? I dunno. Whenever a debate starts about abortion limitations, finding a solution without passing a moral judgement becomes harder and harder.
At 3/1/11 07:27 PM, ChainsawNinjaZX wrote: you made this by stating it would be hypocritical to say genocide is wrong do to the fact you said other countries have founded themselves by committing these acts. Just because they committed these acts doesn't mean genocide is any less wrong.
The argument is not "genocide is not wrong because many countries have founded themselves by committing it" -- the argument is that it is IRRELEVANT because all ethics is aesthetics and therefore meaningless nonsense anyways. Whether it is "more or less" wrong doesn't really matter in the long run.
However, just because this isn't logical doesn't mean you can say there isn't a reason genocide is wrong, and morals are not part of aesthetics as they are not part of beauty, art, or taste.
Of course ethics is a part of aesthetics. When you say you don't like such and such style of painting, you are essentially saying, "I want the canvas to look this way, not that way" -- when you are making ethical judgments you are saying "I want the world to look this way, not that way" -- and so on. Both are also subjective.
When arguing or debating about anything, I do not like opinions as they carry no weight in my mind; only fact and the reason it stems from means anything.
All interpretations are opinions whether or not one affixes "I think..." to it.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
