|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:24 am
I think morals just might be one of the number one reasons society is so messed up. Why can't you have an abortion after being raped and beaten? "It goes against my morals". Why would you kill someone? "He stood against my morals". Why're you christian? "It suits my morals". Why aren't you christian? "It doesn't suit my morals." Why didn't he defend himself before being beaten to death with that club, he was a great martial artist. "It was against his morals to use violence". Why did LoBo practically cheat like fifteen people out of hard earned gold to discuss supernatural stuff? "Because it adhered to his morals".
I don't think there are any objective morals in all of reality, there can't be any greater good, or greater evil. "I THINK" it's just creation and destruction to a certain extent. It would greatly benefit my own self interest to steal an apple, because I'm hungry, it would serve MY self interest to spray paint someone's fur coat screaming "FUR IS MURDER!!" because it would vent anger and piss people off, making me happy on the inside, it would suit MY self interest to do things that serve only ME. Why am I not always selfish? (Yeah, I admit I'll be selfish sometimes.) Because I RESPECT other's self interest, and so do you I bet.
I'm fairly tired of someone saying "I'm doing this for the greater good!" and when you question what the greater good is, they don't exactly have a definition, if they do it isn't very logical. What is the betterment of mankind? What is for the good of the earth? What exactly is positive? I read a small discussion by Socrates explaining why being pious to one god conflicts another god, thus making someone non-pious in a way, which made calling someone unpious fairly easy. That made religiou in athens fairly subjective to individuals, but with balance of piety to the gods one was not bringing bad fortune to Greece. Interesting concept I think. Sounds VERY difficult to deal with society without being severely punished for being unpious to Athena while Poseidon wishes to take over Athens.
Now, I want you all to tell me what other than self interest could possibly drive someone? Religion? It is in one's own interest to strive for heaven or a better afterlife, so that doesn't fly very well. Rejection of religion? Self interest driven. Living for others' happiness? If you like their happiness, that is a very noble self interest. Living to strive for a better planet? You like the planet, you want it better, it is YOU who wants the planet to be better.
Most people only help others if it is in their best interest, if they are neutral to helping or not, or it does not distract them too much. When helping one's friend, you are acting out of respect for anothers' self interest; if you are not wishing for something in return.
I also want to know what you define as "GOOD" or "BAD". Is healing a greater good? If you heal someone I consider an enemy, I don't think that's a greater good. Is harming good or bad? Punishment can teach lessons.
Can you honestly tell me I'm crazy, all of this is subjective, and I'm wrong? Please do. I won't flame you. Just say your opinion on it all.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:13 am
If two people find something can be gained for themselves by trading something, that's moral. If one person wants to make a trade but the other one doesn't, and they don't, that's moral. If one person wants to, the other one doesn't, and the first one forces it, that's immoral. It's possible to look after your own interests and still have an objective morality. Quote: Value is objective (not intrinsic or subjective); value is based on and derives from the facts of reality (it does not derive from mystic authority or from whim, personal or social). Reality, we hold—along with the decision to remain in it, i.e., to stay alive—dictates and demands an entire code of values. Unlike the lower species, man does not pursue the proper values automatically; he must discover and choose them; but this does not imply subjectivism. Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man's life (it is good): or it threatens man's life (it is bad or an evil). The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live. In the objective approach, since every fact bears on the choice to live, every truth necessarily entails a value-judgment, and every value-judgment necessarily presupposes a truth. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every 'is' implies an 'ought.' Evaluation, accordingly, is not a compartmentalized function applicable only to some aspects of man's life or of reality; if one chooses to live and to be objective, a process of evaluation is coextensive with and implicit in every act of cognition. This applies even to metaphysically given facts (as distinguished from man-made facts). Metaphysically given facts cannot as such be evaluated. Sunlight, tidal waves, the law of gravity, et al. are not good or bad; they simply are; such facts constitute reality and are thus the basis of all value-judgments. This does not, however, alter the principle that every "is" implies an "ought." The reason is that every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or indirectly, an implication for man's self-preservation and thus for his proper course of action. In relation to the goal of staying alive, the fact demands specific kinds of actions and prohibits others; i.e., it entails a definite set of evaluations. For instance, sunlight is a fact of metaphysical reality; but once its effects are discovered by man and integrated to his goals, a long series of evaluations follows: the sun is a good thing (an essential of life as we know it); i.e., within the appropriate limits, its light and heat are good, good for us; other things being equal, therefore, we ought to plant our crops in certain locations, build our homes in a certain way (with windows), and so forth; beyond the appropriate limits, however, sunlight is not good (it causes burns or skin cancer); etc. All these evaluations are demanded by the cognitions involved—if one pursues knowledge in order to guide one's actions. Similarly, tidal waves are bad, even though natural; they are bad for us if we get caught in one, and we ought to do whatever we can to avoid such a fate. Even the knowledge of the law of gravity, which represents a somewhat different kind of example, entails a host of evaluations—among the most obvious of which are: using a parachute in midair is good, and jumping out of a plane without one is bad, bad for a man's life.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:22 pm
LoBo_23 I read a small discussion by Socrates explaining why being pious to one god conflicts another god, thus making someone non-pious in a way, which made calling someone unpious fairly easy. That made religiou in athens fairly subjective to individuals, but with balance of piety to the gods one was not bringing bad fortune to Greece. Interesting concept I think. Sounds VERY difficult to deal with society without being severely punished for being unpious to Athena while Poseidon wishes to take over Athens. Congratulations, you've read Euthyphro. And one of the more prominent points was defining piety. Is something pious because the gods love it? Or is it pious to begin with, and the gods love pious things? In the end, it's kind of worked out that it must be a little of both. But then, that brings up the question "what is it to have meaning?" I love my philosophy class. However, I don't think I'll respond to the actual discussion of this thread, though. Mostly because it's a really hazy topic to begin with.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:00 pm
wow this ones a real thinker....
well, i think that the greater good of humanity would be anything that furthers its abilitys, or makes us as a race stronger/better/ preserves humanity from being destroyed.
having said that, to work for the greater good would never benifit everyone. lets say a virus comes about because one person did something/ their uniqe DNA alone caused the virus that woudl therby kill millions of people and animals. working for the greater good would be killing that person before they contract/make the virus... but that person could be greedy or somethign and think its not the greater good because its /their/ life and they wanna live it...
onto healing. healing would only be for the greater good if it wasnt out of self interest. lets say there is a war between asia and europe. asia trys to conqure europe because they belive that the world would be a better place if the europeans dont invent a cure for AIDS, because the asian government can keep better controll with it for whatever reason. if you were asian, you would belive that its a greater good for humanity, but it woud only benifit your county. if you are european, then you would see that a cure for AIDS would help humanity as a whole, and thus belive that is the greater good.
as for what could drive someone, i dont know. id like to say im not driven by self interest but i like to do things that please me. the only exaple i can think of is when i get into fights half the time. some guy thinks he will proovfe hes big and bad for whatever reason by fighting me because i happen to be a little bigger then most the guys i know. do i fight back? never because i want to... which i could bring up a story but its alredy a long post so ill elave it at this.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:00 pm
I purely follow Universal Morals which tell what is "WRONG" and what is "Right".
I personnaly believe that if everyone would to follow those, things would much much more better...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:14 pm
Kind of hard to word them without any situation to use them on... Just give me a moral dilema and I'll solve it using Universal Morals..
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:14 pm
ChiyuriYami I purely follow Universal Morals which tell what is "WRONG" and what is "Right". I personnaly believe that if everyone would to follow those, things would much much more better... Define "universal." I mean, I can see how "universal morals" would cover some things like murder, rape, and stealing, but what about controversial issues like abortion? There is nothing universally wrong or right about abortion. saying "I follow universal morals" is a cop out. Unless, of course, you were to explain yourself clearly. Which would be very nice and would make many people very happy.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:18 pm
Abortion.
Abortion is the removal of a special lumb of flesh in the woman (the baby while growing inside)
Since it is souless until a certain age (somewhere after 2 to 3 years old it get a soul), it is purely flesh part of the woman's body. To make it simpler, it is the woman choice to either get an abortion or not. No one else have rights over it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:24 pm
ChiyuriYami Kind of hard to word them without any situation to use them on... Just give me a moral dilema and I'll solve it using Universal Morals.. You've just been shot in the arm by an armed gunman. He has a switch in his hand, he will blow up every single person you love and care about, and you if you give him some vital information, but if you refuse to give him the information he will kill one hundred thousand people for every minute you delay. The vital information is a new mutated AIDS virus chemical composition that deteriorates your immune system to much that it actually dissolves in your system, giving you more pain than imaginable. There is no escape. What do you do? Or... There is a raped girl, she hates herself for the rape, hates the person who raped her, hates the world, and is suicidal, but isn't quite fully convinced her child should die. She plans to commit suicide after the child is born, leaving an unknown child in the hospital to be later adopted and/or molested, but the girl will kill herself either way. What is the better moral decision? Abortion to end both lives now, or take the chance that the child may find love in life? You have one million dollars, what third world/poor country's homeless/poor do you donate it to, or do you choose to support something else? You flip a coin... Choose, heads or tails? THE COIN IS FALLING FAST! scream Last one... What goes in a toaster?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:24 pm
ChiyuriYami Abortion. Abortion is the removal of a special lumb of flesh in the woman (the baby while growing inside) Since it is souless until a certain age (somewhere after 2 to 3 years old it get a soul), it is purely flesh part of the woman's body. To make it simpler, it is the woman choice to either get an abortion or not. No one else have rights over it. Ok. But, I mean, you would agree that that's not a "universal" belief? That's kind of the whole point.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:26 pm
LoBo_23 Last one... What goes in a toaster? OOH! OOH! I know this one. Toes.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:28 pm
I use the word Universal since they englob everything.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|