Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 217

Thread: Morality and ethics: what are your values and why?

  1. #191
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Delphinus View Post
    ^ Justify the existence of the primary values.
    As objective values, the primary values do not exist. They are artificial and require a consensus between the majority of society. However, they would benefit the greatest amount of people, as everyone would be happy under these rules except for those who require the harm of others to be happy, who are generally labeled mentally challenged. The values strike a balance; as they allow the freedom for every individual to do what they wish with their own body, while controlling acts which favor one person over the other.

    In the end, the values are my preference. As an individual I:
    1. want to prevent others from denying me survival.
    2. see no reason to deny survival to anyone else.
    3. believe that once basic needs are met, no other "rights" must be given save the right to strive for what is desired.

  2. #192
    Sir-Mass-a-Lot Sylux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    7,447
    What if what they desire is to not be raped, and your desire is to rape? Do you respect or value their will for denial, or follow rational egoism?

  3. #193
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylux View Post
    What if what they desire is to not be raped, and your desire is to rape? Do you respect or value their will for denial, or follow rational egoism?
    Rape violates rule #1, if we're still talking about my value system.

  4. #194
    Sir-Mass-a-Lot Sylux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    7,447
    "I want to prevent others from denying me my survival."
    How will raping someone deny you survival, unless you raped someone's daughter or girlfriend without first eliminating all who care with power to end you?

  5. #195
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylux View Post
    "I want to prevent others from denying me my survival."
    How will raping someone deny you survival, unless you raped someone's daughter or girlfriend without first eliminating all who care with power to end you?
    No, not rule one of my justification, rule 1 as in "If it hurts someone else's basic welfare, it is illegal." Although it also goes against my second justification as well, if survival is extended to basic welfare.

  6. #196
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,337
    I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.

    Premise 1: All human beings are driven to seek pleasure directly (instant gratification) or indirectly (deferred gratification).
    Premise 2: Different humans obtain pleasure through different activities.
    Premise 3: A moral code defines certain activities as prohibited and lauds others.
    Premise 4: A prohibited activity may bring pleasure to someone. Conversely a lauded activity may make someone unhappy.
    Conclusion: No single moral code can bring pleasure to all human beings.

    Premise 1: No single moral code can bring pleasure to all human beings.
    Premise 2: The state universalises and legitimises a single moral code through law.
    Conclusion 1a: The state and its rigid codes of morals will forever be unable to satisfy everyone.
    Conclusion 1b (1a reworded): Universal law cannot bring pleasure to all its subjects.

    Premise 1: Different humans obtain pleasure through different activities.
    Premise 2: No single moral code can bring pleasure to all human beings.
    Premise 3: Universal law cannot bring pleasure to all its subjects.
    Conclusion: The only way a human can obtain maximum pleasure is by regarding only their own will to pleasure regardless of the morals of others and social norms.

    Premise 1: The only way a human can obtain maximum pleasure is by regarding only their own will to pleasure regardless of the morals of others and social norms.
    Premise 2: All human beings are driven to seek pleasure directly (instant gratification) or indirectly (deferred gratification).

    CONCLUSION: It makes most sense for humans to disregard morals of others and social norms in pursuit of their own desires. This might include constructing their own moral codes, but those moral codes ought to be personal. Forcing the moral code on others would only lead to the displeasure of those others; it would not benefit the Other, and thus the Other ought reject it in favour of their own moral code.

    EDIT: Or rather, everyone should just live their life according to this song.

    Last edited by Delphinus; 06-03-2011 at 08:34 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

  7. #197
    Fenn
    Guest
    I can write premises too!

    Premise 1: Our actions affect the people and things around us (our environment).
    Premise 2: Our environment, in return, affects us in our search for pleasure.
    Conclusion: Our actions towards our environment affect our search for pleasure.

    Premise 1: All human beings are driven to seek pleasure directly (instant gratification) or indirectly (deferred gratification).
    Premise 2: Different humans obtain pleasure through different activities.
    Premise 3: Regard or disregard for others and social norms affects our environment.
    Premise 4: Our actions towards our environment affect our ability to seek pleasure.
    Conclusion: To maximize pleasure, we should balance steadfast adherence to our own moral code (or lack thereof) with awareness towards the moral codes of others and social norms.

    Premise 1: A universal moral code will never please everyone.
    Premise 2: Having no universal moral code will not please everyone.
    Premise 3: Different people seek pleasure in different ways.
    Conclusion: The moral code of society should seek to allow as many people to seek pleasure in their own way, so long as those people do not deny the pleasure of others.

  8. #198
    Sir-Mass-a-Lot Sylux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    7,447
    What if you can derive no pleasure from anything but denial of others' happiness?

  9. #199
    101 Dalmations Member neogenstru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The dephs of Oblivion
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Delphinus View Post
    Dunno. You might be a sadist and derive pleasure from tying up and executing children.

    So you're basically arguing for culturally-based moral relativism. Fair enough. There's one problem, though: if we assume that what's considered 'good' by a particular society is, in fact, good, then any rebellion against those values is automatically 'evil' by the standards of that society. This doesn't allow for individuals to have differing moral views: if what society says is good is good, then anyone who holds an 'abnormal' morality is necessarily 'evil'. That means that if a modern man were to go back to Aztec times and attempt to stop human sacrifices, he'd be evil. Except - would he? I'd argue not, because I don't believe morality is based on what society thinks is correct.

    The most obvious argument against moral relativism is that it's based on a logical fallacy, namely the argument from popularity: "If most people think something is good, it's good!" Of course, if you argue the more logical counterpart "If most people in a society think something is good, then it's considered good by their society!" then you have to consider this: a society is comprised of people. It doesn't exist separately from them, as some exterior object: the people are the society. Switch this into your moral statement and you're saying: "If most people in a society think something is good, most people in a society think it's good!" No shit, Sherlock. In philosophical terms - moral relativism is either a fallacy or a tautology, and it's of no practical use to us either way.

    I would argue that it's not what a society decides is 'right' or 'wrong' for an actor to performs that makes those actions correct: it's the actor's own will. All morality derives from what I want. If I decide that child sacrifice pleases me (for some logically justified reason, such as, as I said above, that I'm a sadist and derive pleasure from it) and child sacrifice fits with my other beliefs, then so be it. Child sacrifice is good for me and me alone. However, others may disagree with me. There is no standard for morality outside of my skull.

    EDIT: Pretty good battlecry for my perspective on morals and politics and everything else that's important. "Let's stop praying for someone to save us and start saving ourselves."

    Actually quite the opposite, I was saying good and evil don't exist because they are ideas based on societies, but for the most yea I agree with ya.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sylux View Post
    What if you can derive no pleasure from anything but denial of others' happiness?
    Or what if you get pleasure from other people denying your happiness 0_o?
    Last edited by neogenstru; 06-03-2011 at 09:32 PM.

  10. #200
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylux View Post
    What if you can derive no pleasure from anything but denial of others' happiness?
    Then you are a product of either a severe mental disorder or a horrendous childhood. You have three options:

    1. Seek pleasure and face the rath of those you harm.
    2. Attempt to find safe outlets for your pleasure. Video games may help, or you could write dark, tragic literature (in a personal journal or possibly for a living).
    3. Attempt to alter your desires. This IS possible; a person does not derive pleasure from the exact same things there entire life. A genuine effort (not forced, but attempted) to appreciate other forms of pleasure is possible. You just need an open mind. If it doesn't work, try something else.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •