Jump to content
Avant Labs
plornive

Morality

Recommended Posts

Many of the philosophical questions on this board seem to revolve around morality. Many times, it is apparent that peoples' opions differ almost exclusively as a result of conflicting moral suppositions.

 

So... Morality. What is it? How does it work?

 

I'll start. I believe that morality is a set of social and biological forces that influences how we interact as social creatures and keeps us working together efficiently. Monkeys, birds and humans are all born with social emotions and possibly morals. A child may be taught that it would be wrong to kill his/her mother, but this moral idea also seems to be biologically innate. Generally, I believe that people are happier when they follow the moral ideas given to them by society and biology. A certain level of immorality and/or redefining of morals to one's mind/opinion/liking is also probably very healthy.

 

Religion, law and popular culture are all either influenced or controlled by morality. Religion, in my opinion, is a tool of morality. Religion encapsulates, solidifies and enforces morality. As indicated above, morality includes the solidification of society --- conformity. Religion may also divide as well as conform people. Law is another method of keeping people in line. Law is not completely inclusive of others' ideas of morality, but is simply one component of mine. Since it keeps society together in a way, it is morality. Popular culture propagates values and conforms people similarly to religion.

 

On an international level, as stated in another post regarding violence, I believe that morals are propagated and defined by force and power. Morality is just a hindsight explanation and/or justification of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that morals are propagated and defined by force and power.

There is a dictum that illustrates this:"Might is Right!"

Another one that relates to war and 'right' is:"history is written by the winners"i.e the winner is right/good and the loser is guilty/evil.

Nietzsche said weakness was evil and strength good since man strives for power-"will to power".

 

Religion is absolutely a control tool.But I don't know if I'd agree that it is moral/good only because it has unified people and kept them in line and in harmony.

 

I think the objectivists say anything good and moral is that which is conducive to life and helps man progress.

 

My own views aren't fully formed yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality is a question of power, but to speak of it in this manner, you are forced to question what you mean by power. The Will-to-Power refers to something quite different than some individual instance of force, or some imperialistic credo. Try to think about power in a more physical manner: as relations between forces: not power over, but rather power to. The Will-to-Power is an intensification of a plane of relations. Truths and moralities should be seen as horizontal proliferations of this power.

 

"The will to power is essentially creative and giving: it does not aspire, it does not seek, it does not desire, above all it does not desire power. It gives."

- Deleuze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few quick thoughts (as this is all that I am capable of forming, at the moment):

 

1)Yes, the mere fact of "unity" is not a virtue in itself. 1000 men united in avarice and deceit is not the same as 1000 men united in progress and reason. So, those that assert the ties that bond men in religious grace, assert nothing, since a context is not established. Unity is not a goal in itself, and the harmonious relationship of men is nothing standing, when, achievement comes not, and servititude comes forth.

 

2)What is moral, is what is good. To steal a mans property is not moral, since in the grand scheme of matters, general prosperity is not achieved. A society that makes progress by each man paving his way via his work in accomplishment, and via his work in productivity, is far apart from a society that steals from others, and pillages those that walk the gold path built by their own hands. Thus, Communism is immoral for that fact. It is not the crux of prosperity that is the herald of such a system, but rather it is the posit of destruction.

 

3)And people are happy when they live a life without question. To live an "examined life", is far more the harrowing, as one is forced to question that which is put before them. And make no mistake, I despise cynics. Quite a difference there is between one who questions with reason, and one who blindly dismisses. And if there ever was the mark of a cynic, it is this "Since I can't believe everything to be true, I will simply dismiss everything as a whole, therefore avoiding falsehood". So much for the happiness of "morality" that comes pre-made like a Happy Meal.

 

And to take this tangent one step further (since I am stuck on the part regarding happiness and conformity), I will quote Epictetus (I generally don't like to quote, but this is apt):

 

The school of a philosopher is a surgery. You should not depart in pleasure, but in pain

 

Further adding to that, this "pain" is the process of rationally contemplating the matters before you; pleasure comes from the coming of terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And make no mistake, I despise cynics. Quite a difference there is between one who questions with reason, and one who blindly dismisses. And if there ever was the mark of a cynic, it is this \"Since I can't believe everything to be true, I will simply dismiss everything as a whole, therefore avoiding falsehood\".

I'm confused by what you mean exactly, but I will attempt to comment.

 

I regard morality as an invention of living creatures. Therefore, while a system of morality may be universally defined, it is only relevant to those who subscribe to it. For example, defining morality as something that works for the common good of society is just an idea. Some people may not subscribe to that idea --- this has nothing to do with dismissal and everything to do with preference.

 

I wonder why anyone would believe that morality is anything more than a practical idea. Not subscribing to a particular moral idea may simply be preference. Choosing to not subscribe to all moral ideas may just be choosing pragmatism over universalism --- while morals are obviously practical in some regards, not everyone wants to be practical in those regards. Some people feel constricted by universal morality. Some people derive more benefit by being immoral according to an idea of universal morality.

 

So, what is "dismissal"? Are people who "dismiss" universal morality unintelligent? Are they absolutely wrong? Or, do they simply play by different rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran off on a tangent, since several ideas were on my mind, and some points of mention sparked them. Sorry.

 

That aside:

 

I will simply mention several points (instead of directly going tit for tat), so in that, perhaps something may be seen.

 

1) The concept of "universal morality" is vague, as it holds no context. That can be taken to mean any given system of beliefs/morals. Example (you will have to forgive me, if my thoughts are fragmented)--If the moral is the rational and being moral is doing "what is right", then----->

 

If progress (in terms of a countries wealth) can only be achieved by the division of labor, and by the voluntary actions of individuals in a free market (which then, will make it a moral system), then any country (or any call to the contrary), could not be regarded as equally moral, since, progress would not come about by an opposite system.

 

So, this fact would be universal, just as setting fire to a tree in Arizona will be the same as setting fire to a tree in Zimbabwe. And if wood burns here, it burns there as well. If fire is needed to set the world ablaze in this neck of the woods, then water will not accomplish the same end in a different neck of the world, regardless if someone sees the "universal" nature of this, or not. Reason and reality, is universal.

 

2) With regards to personal benefit---if I derive more "personal benefit" by stealing your property, raping your sister, and living of the wealth that I did not create, surely, this can not be regarded as my own rightful personal code of morality. I would assume, that someone beyond just killing me, would state the reasons as to why my actions were wrong.

 

Constricted? So a whim is taken as the rejection of universal standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not power over, but rather power to. The Will-to-Power is an intensification of a plane of relations. Truths and moralities should be seen as horizontal proliferations of this power.

Ras,could you elaborate a bit on the 'will to power' concept(in rather simple terms so I can understand,lol)?

 

Is it correct that the 'will to power' is all the unconsious,physical forces driving man?What does it aspire towards?I don't think it's about survival or necessarily domination over others.Could it be said it's sort of like 'will to self-actualisation' or 'becoming ones nature'?Ones animal nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Will-to-Power is often misinterpreted as the wanting or seeking of power; this is at best a reactive characterization of a very base form of the will: one that moves from the negative, from lack. The true form of the Will-to-Power is active; it is creative, giving, affirmative. You have to dispense with personalist translations of the concept; it is a question of some one acting upon another one. Again, you can think of it from a Newtonian perspective as a complex interplay between forces. Nietszsche wrote of it as an organic process, something Bergson would later translate as 'elan vital' (vital force) and Heidegger as 'es gibt' (it gives). Considering the Will-to-Power in terms of potentiality and actuality is another effective means of exploring the concept. Hope this helps a little.

 

"What is the objective measure of value? Solely the quantum of enhanced and organized power."

- Nietzsche, Nachlass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ran off on a tangent, since several ideas were on my mind, and some points of mention sparked them. Sorry.

 

That aside:

 

I will simply mention several points (instead of directly going tit for tat), so in that, perhaps something may be seen.

 

1) The concept of \"universal morality\" is vague, as it holds no context. That can be taken to mean any given system of beliefs/morals. Example (you will have to forgive me, if my thoughts are fragmented)--If the moral is the rational and being moral is doing \"what is right\", then----->

 

If progress (in terms of a countries wealth) can only be achieved by the division of labor, and by the voluntary actions of individuals in a free market (which then, will make it a moral system), then any country (or any call to the contrary), could not be regarded as equally moral, since, progress would not come about by an opposite system.

 

So, this fact would be universal, just as setting fire to a tree in Arizona will be the same as setting fire to a tree in Zimbabwe. And if wood burns here, it burns there as well. If fire is needed to set the world ablaze in this neck of the woods, then water will not accomplish the same end in a different neck of the world, regardless if someone sees the \"universal\" nature of this, or not. Reason and reality, is universal.

 

2) With regards to personal benefit---if I derive more \"personal benefit\" by stealing your property, raping your sister, and living of the wealth that I did not create, surely, this can not be regarded as my own rightful personal code of morality. I would assume, that someone beyond just killing me, would state the reasons as to why my actions were wrong.

 

Constricted? So a whim is taken as the rejection of universal standards?

I have been thinking about this for the past few days. Since I am overloaded with work right now, I can't spend a lot of time explaining my thoughts, but here goes...

 

I agreed with most of what you said. I want to clarify that I have respect for people with morals --- people with principles and social/nonsocial protocol. I understand why one person would have a lack of respect or disrespect for someone whom lacked these qualities. Being immoral may be unnatural and inorganic to humanity and society. It may be counterproductive to the obvious function of society.

 

I think you may have initially been talking about the academic denial of the validity and/or existence of morality. I am talking about the denial of the universality of morality, *IN ACTION* and perhaps in thought, while acknowledging it's practicality and existence. Let me explain...

 

I am just trying to figure out for myself why any individual should or should not necessarily come to a rational conclusion to be moral. While morality seems to be collectively advantageous, it does not seem to always be individually advantageous. It seems practical to move in and out of morality at will --- to be somewhat "flaky", if you will.

 

It seems practical to view morality as a device or method to be used when practical. This takes universality out of it and replaces it with generality. This paradigm could support the total rejection of universality, *in theory*.

 

 

To be honest, I am not really debating or arguing with you --- I'm mainly looking for insight.

 

How do you view people who are relatively immoral, or people who lack morals? It seems perfectly rational to reject morals at will and replace it with pure self-interest (including self-interest that coincides with morality).

 

I ask this again in a different context, and I am looking for insight rather than debating: What more is the rejection of morality than just playing by different rules?

 

I hope I interpreted your reply accurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you view people who are relatively immoral, or people who lack morals?  It seems perfectly rational to reject morals at will and replace it with pure self-interest (including self-interest that coincides with morality).

 

I view them as inhuman beasts, and do not regard them, conceptually, as human. The posit of reason is the essence of humanity, so those that act to the contrary, letting whim dictate the realm of being, are nothing more than beasts living on the plane of perception (it sees, it reacts, and one thought does not necessarily correlate and integrate with the next one).

 

In terms of pure self-interest, for example, I do not regard the raping of a woman as being rational to me, and, I do not regard this as being in my best-interest. It would depend, on what morals you were asking me to reject.

 

And, that is the issue (did you read my last article,regarding drugs?). What some deem "moral" or "immoral" is illogical. So, if I broke the "moral-bond" that said being a self-serving businessman was immoral, and that "service to humanity" was proper, I would not think myself to be disregarding morality--simply, I would be ignoring the false proclamation of what was deemed "immoral".

 

So, we can't simply say "I will be immoral one minute, and immoral the next". Fundamentally, we would have to define what was moral, and what was not.

 

As a personal example (I am not trying to argue, either, so I hope you don't take it as such; although presenting and debating, often go hand in hand): I don't live my life under any pretense of being "moral", with regards to a pre-fabricated set of beliefs set by society (one must respect their elders, one must not do "drugs", service to humanity is the essence of proper being etc). Whatever I seek to do, I see how it correlates with reality/reason, and as they say "let truth be your guide". To that, I regard whatever is truthful, as being moral, so if I ever act "immoral" it is not because I am immoral, it is because I am acting against a false perception of what immorality was.

 

"Tradition", "Respect", "Loyalty", so on, are meaningless to me, and evoke no response unless someone defines the context that I am supposed to act in. What was "good for my parents" means nothing to me. What was "done by my ancestors" means nothing--I have no "people", so I don't care what toes of tradition are broken when I walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To inquire upon morals I think one must first look also at ethics and mark the distinction. One is believed to be universal and the other natve to a certain culture or region. While I think some morals become inate I think most of it comes from examples set by parents, friends and other role models.

 

Look at the case of the abusive husband/father, in 99.9% of the cases this person himself comes from a family in which the father was abusive.

 

It could be stated that to a lardge extrent living is simplly trying to get what you 'think you want'. To do this one could use force or steel it or work for it. There seams to be a baseline level of 'goodness' and at this point one can given the oppertunity give up part of that goodness to get what they want. For instance dose shop lifting not cause on to loose something in the way of honor or some other virtue? In the same respect does denying the temptation do shoplift not add to ones self in some small way?

 

I belive the function of morals and ethics is the ability of one to weight the values of these virtures against one could gain by giving them up for what they think they want.

 

This of course could be illustrated by the angel and the devil sitting on each should as you consider your choices. Therefore could we not then call morals and ethics properties of the concience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morals are the particular extensions of ethics. And ethical system is the foundation, and morals are based upon that (so, what someone deems moral or immoral will be weighed against their general matter of ethics. If "service to humanity" becomes an ethical principle, then a "self-serving" individual is "immoral" in that context).

 

As with the case of the abusive parent, this is a matter of thinking. Sadly, most never learn outside of the context of that which they have been shown. You are born, a "blank-slate" (Tabula Rasa). And most, simply let others draw their graffiti upon them, never erasing or contemplating that which is put upon them.

 

And, yes, something can not be had for nothing. In the process of taking, you leave something behind as well.

 

The (fundamental) function of virtues/morals is to guide human actions. Life would be a conceptual abyss, if we did not act according to some code (right or wrong), which gave us a context upon which to base our actions/dealings with others.

 

Ethics and morals are properties of the thinking mind. Without man, ethics and morality would not exist (that is, this is his guidance to existence, and if he did not exist, then such guidance and conceptions would not be). And his consciousness, is a "scale" (the devil and the angel). Based upon his perception of right and wrong (moral and immoral), and how this moral or immoral action fits within his conception of ethics, he acts; and of course, the confines of his mind rankle when he contradicts his intentions with his actions. So, the conscious easily turn into a prison (like the "Telltale Heart" from Poe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dante,what is your opinion of Nietzsche?Do you believe,like Ayn Rand,that he was a mystic and an irrationalist,something she objected against?

Your article "Thus spoke Dante" is a reference to Nietzsches Zarathustra,isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for interjecting, but anyone who characterized Nietzsche as an irrationalist or a mystic was woefully ignorant of his thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ras,feel free to interject anytime,especially on Nietzsche since you seem to be a real expert on him.

 

In the introduction the the Fountainhead Rand writes:"philosophically Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist.His metaphysics consist of a somewhat "Byronic" and mystically "malevolent" universe;his epistemology subordinates reason to "will", or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character.But as a poet,he projects at times(not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man's greatness,expressed in emotional,not intellectual terms"

 

Dante,I'm also interested in your opinion of Rand since you said she was an influence on your thought.But you also said you didn't wan't any labels to be put on you.Is there a problem with her philosophy which you do not agree with?

I learned of Rand from Mike Mentzer and he was quoting her everywhere and called her a "perfect" human being("she achieved human perfection on earth").She was the closest thing to God to Mike,it seemed(Mike also called Arthur Jones God a few times I think,lol).But Mike did have severe psychological issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will answer this in several ways, as my proper retort would literally necessitate an essay to fully explicate my ideas (you will see, what I mean, come the short moment).

 

I have not read Nietzsche in quite some time, and at that, it was not a thorough enough reading to come to a conclusion regarding him. The "Thus spoke", is a spin off of Zarathustra, however, that column preface of title used to precede Par's philosophical musings in earlier issues--- "Thus Spoke Pardeustra", and so did I inherit that.

 

Regarding Rand, there is very little that I disagree with, upon my pensive ponderings of her stance; what I reject, is her following, and the manner in which her remaining members come to learn. This leads me to say the following (note, this is tangential in nature, and I fear that if I make this too long, this will lead the conversation astray, and I also fear that if I make it too short, a proper explanation for my reasoning will be left in wanting---thus, I will simply state a few fundamental points of mine, and if anyone really cares, I can further expound [i in time, plan to write an essay regarding the following, and this is something that I have never explained, to anyone---or when I have, I am simply told to "shut the fuck up", so this is not polished and will simply be spat out with little thought]

 

I don't involve myself in Academic discource with regards to a particular Philosophers stance. There is a fundamental standpoint behind each authors point of view, and to that, such is the issue that should be presented. When I read a book, I take a "gulp and spit" filter approach----I don't care to remember names, passages in length, or even the persons standpoint to such an extent that I can debate as such by saying "no, this person meant this and that, in such an such a passage". I view the issues, absorb them, integrate them into my hierarchy, and then further forge my sword.

 

From an educational standpoint, this is the bane of reason, as people simply learn to debate trivial points, without cutting to the bone. Even if one did not read the works of a given author, their line of reasoning, in relation to reality, could easily be put forth by someone, and debated even among those not familiar with the author------as they could grasp the fundamental aspect behind it. Sadly, most philosophical discourse is presented as the arcane ramblings of one thousand lexicons of use, spawned by two-thousand men.

 

People learn to debate over trivialities, instead of bone and sinew fundamentals (look at Economic debates, they rarely consider basic standpionts, and are incapable of reducing their notions to fundamental levels--for example, one can debate imports versus exports, statistics from one year versus the years of past, however, they can not mentally graps the foundation upon which wealth is built--that is, how "wealth" and "productivity" come to be; the same can be said regarding Political discourse, as the policy of Nations is pondered, but no one cares to see how Empires come to be, and what bones and sinews rest behind the notions they speak of).

 

So, I simply integrate ideas as I come across them. I have read the works of Titus Livius (the history of Rome), however, all I concern myself with, is, the fundamental machinations (as I came to understand them), that caused/created such wars, friction, and woes of State. I did not read it, from such a standpoint, so that I could say "Hannibal's plan of action in such and such an instance caused the Carthaginians to" etc. I looked at the fundamental aspect, took it in, integrated it, and dropped the names, dates, and locations.

 

I will leave it at this, as, this is, tangential, and quite likely does not explain fully my stance; though, I can expand further, on another thread, if anyone really cares (I am viewing this from an educational standpoint, as I detest the halls of Academia, for the manner in which people come to "learn" about History, Politics, and Philosophy. They don't learn the fundamental ties that bond, and they never learn to cut bones beneath the skin).

 

So, to simply close this, I would argue from a standpoint of what is mystical, what is the bastion of Reason, what is the proper method of cognition, so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand's 'interpretations' of many philosophers ignore the complexities of their thought, and she has a tendency to commit the straw man fallacy. The Nietzsche interpretation is a case in point; she caricatures him to the point that his writings come across as some second-rate Lovecraftian novella in which he plays some half-assed anti-hero. Zarathustra is an excellent example of a text whose richness is rarely experienced by the reader; understandings are often literal, sometimes metaphorical, but rarely do they penetrate any of the metaphysical and highly logical profundity of the work.

 

Mentzer was a typical Randroid; this happens to anyone who deifies or canonizes a thinker...the texts become holy writ, and all non-sanctioned readings become heretical. Reason and the critical faculties are tossed out the window in favour of an ugly messianism. The Nazis did this quite effectively with Nietzsche, after Nietzsche's beloved sister, an avowed anti-semite, told Hitler that he was the man F.W.N. had foreseen as the Ubermensch. Thus the anti-prophet becomes a prophet.

 

I see all philosophy as potential strategic material...what I vainly try to do is something that the French call bricolage...stealing bits and pieces from various crumbling edifices to rebuild something hopeful and new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand's following, as I saw it, was reduced to nothing more than a gaggle of slavish souls waiting for John Galt to wisk them away from the maelstrom of evil. I saw her site several times, as I do follow an Objectivist manner of living, however, I was disgusted by the manner in which her following trawled along the beaten path, with little thought. Contests to see who can best summarize her novels and such.

 

She was a rare mind, a brilliant mind; such can not be said for the majority of the sheep that came in tow. What is left, is nothing more than the remnants of a great mind, with far little understanding of rational thinking (case in point-Mentzer). Sad thing is, her following was destroyed at its foundation during her lifetime; she simply never saw it. Such are the risks of leadership, since your enemies are generally no further than your friends, and often, they are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is morality? It is a word that has been so perverted and distorted to glorify some and stomp on others. "It is immoral to have sex before marriage!" she screams...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a dictum that illustrates this:"Might is Right!"

Another one that relates to war and 'right' is:"history is written by the winners"i.e the winner is right/good and the loser is guilty/evil.

Nietzsche said weakness was evil and strength good since man strives for power-"will to power".

 

Religion is absolutely a control tool.But I don't know if I'd agree that it is moral/good only because it has unified people and kept them in line and in harmony.

 

I think the objectivists say anything good and moral is that which is conducive to life and helps man progress.

 

My own views aren't fully formed yet.

The American Indians are losers. So are they Bad?

Religions have caused HARMONY? It has caused just the opposite. Most all wars are based on Idealogical/Religious disputes. Religion is I agree a control tool. Religion uses Fear based myths to control its subjects.

Morality is a conception made up by man to justify what he is trying to do at any given moment.

Nothing is inherently Good or bad. Depending on what your trying to do. a thing is bad if it fails to give you a desired result. If I want to drive from New York to Florida is it wrong to drive to Kansas first. Depends on what your trying to do. If doing, thinking, saying a thing does not serve you then it is not correct.

Man has decided what is moral. Not GOD. It used to be wrong to not eat fish on Friday, then the Church said its OK. It used to be wrong for a woman to be a priest, then the church says its ok. Morality is made up. Created as we go along. The Gay issue will change in time. The Stem cell issue will change in time. All moral issues change. GOD does not change, or so the church says. All our societal morality standards come from our religious beliefs...supposedly. And that is part of the problem, our religious beliefs are based on 2 thousand year old standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American Indians are losers. So are they Bad?

Religions have caused HARMONY? It has caused just the opposite. Most all wars are based on Idealogical/Religious disputes. Religion is I agree a control tool. Religion uses Fear based myths to control its subjects.

Morality is a conception made up by man to justify what he is trying to do at any given moment.

Nothing is inherently Good or bad. Depending on what your trying to do. a thing is bad if it fails to give you a desired result. If I want to drive from New York to Florida is it wrong to drive to Kansas first. Depends on what your trying to do. If doing, thinking, saying a thing does not serve you then it is not correct.

Man has decided what is moral. Not GOD. It used to be wrong to not eat fish on Friday, then the Church said its OK. It used to be wrong for a woman to be a priest, then the church says its ok. Morality is made up. Created as we go along. The Gay issue will change in time. The Stem cell issue will change in time. All moral issues change. GOD does not change, or so the church says. All our societal morality standards come from our religious beliefs...supposedly. And that is part of the problem, our religious beliefs are based on 2 thousand year old standards.

 

"Nothing is inherently Good or bad. Depending on what your trying to do. a thing is bad if it fails to give you a desired result."

 

not to be an asshole, but..

 

So chopping up your mom and eating her is bad if your intent was to have a little fun, but it turned out not to be as fun as you originally thought it might be?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nothing is inherently Good or bad. Depending on what your trying to do. a thing is bad if it fails to give you a desired result."

 

not to be an asshole, but..

 

So chopping up your mom and eating her is bad if your intent was to have a little fun, but it turned out not to be as fun as you originally thought it might be?

Here we go again. UBAN ACHIEVER never has anything to contribute..unless I post. I hope you don't think I take you seriously Urban.

If your intent was to have fun by killing your parents, then find it wasn't, what have you learned? All actions has consequences. You may have had fun chopping up mom and dad. Ask your self why you did it. and Did you have the mental competence to realize it was none "right" according to the current laws. knowing that you would suffer the consequences for your action, yet went ahead with your actions, then your just a fool. Beside constantly trashing every post I make... try just giving you opinions of your own...I know you'll have to think for a change.. but hey..give it a try.

If Hitler was one of your parents then would your actions have been without consequence? Well, you say that would be the exception to the rules if I killed Hitler. A rule is not a rule if it has exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nothing is inherently Good or bad. Depending on what your trying to do. a thing is bad if it fails to give you a desired result."

 

Those are your words. Re-read and explain.

 

"unless I post"

 

wtf??? I dont usually care who wrote what, but what one wrote.

 

"try just giving you opinions of your own"

 

ok, I think you are really trying hard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again. UBAN ACHIEVER never has anything to contribute..unless I post. I hope you don't think I take you seriously Urban.

If your intent was to have fun by killing your parents, then find it wasn't, what have you learned? All actions has consequences. You may have had fun chopping up mom and dad. Ask your self why you did it. and Did you have the mental competence to realize it was none "right" according to the current laws. knowing that you would suffer the consequences for your action, yet went ahead with your actions, then your just a fool. Beside constantly trashing every post I make... try just giving you opinions of your own...I know you'll have to think for a change.. but hey..give it a try.

If Hitler was one of your parents then would your actions have been without consequence? Well, you say that would be the exception to the rules if I killed Hitler. A rule is not a rule if it has exceptions.

 

 

DaRooster,

 

Our past quibbles aside, I agree with your basic premise that morality is relative. I think the issue here is with the last part of your statement: "Depending on what your trying to do. a thing is bad if it fails to give you a desired result." Some further clarification is needed here. Like urbanachiever said, a desired result of murder tends to throw a wrench in the works. Perhaps you accounted for that with the "Depending on what you are trying to do.." part. But I think things could stand to be hammered out a bit more here.

 

You said "If doing, thinking, saying a thing does not serve you then it is not correct." Elucidate on "serve you".. are you leaning towards utilitarianism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×