Morality and ethics: what are your values and why?

[CypressDahlia]

Money doesn't have an objective or fixed worth. It's only worth what people say it's worth...

Yes, that's true. But this unanimously affects everyone using that type of currency, so it's still objective as there are no exceptions. Even if we said the number 2 now = the number 3, it would still be objective given that the new theory is consistently practiced by everyone.

Also, it's weird to assume people who are part of a majority are pressured to be part of that majority. They could very well be part of that majority entirely of their own will.

[Fenn]

Related: Do you believe force (through conquest, robbery, etc.) is an acceptable way to acquire possessions? If so, why; if not, why not?

I need a clarification. Do you mean based on my personal values or universally? Personally I think it is acceptable so long as the possesion is not essential to the survival of another. I don't find taking someone's basic needs worth it.

Universally I believe even more so that it is ACCEPTABLE, but that is far different than ADVISABLE. If someone takes a game/gadget/possession from me by force, and there's nothing I can do to stop them, I accept it. I also make a mental reminder that this person is not a friend but a foe and that I will never help them unless they prove through strenuous means that they have changed. In most cases, acts of possession by force have adverse side affects.

I generally find force isn't worth it. Theft and conquest create enemies, and I place a high price on trust and alliance. I believe in a sort of unwritten "human insurance" concept where a web of people, be it friends, family, or coworkers, agree to help each other with the expectation that when they need help, the other person will come to their aid. This may sound dangerous, but it is often easier than it appears to see who has your back. First of all, the person must NEED help, not want it. Simply being polite and friendly doesn't cut it. Second, the first or second time someone refuses to aid you, all bets are off, and they don't get anymore help.

Forcibly taking things breaks this trust and creates nothing but opposition for me.

(I feel like popping in out of nowhere.)
Force? Well, it depends on the situation at hand for me. I believe that if the force is for a greater cause, then yes, in my mind it is acceptable. Vice versa is also true. However, I believe that society, as a whole, will always say no. This is ridiculous. If we think force is unacceptable, why do we create wars? War is an excellent example of human hypocrisy: when we can't reach a mutual agreement, we create wars - we oppose someone - and this collides with us saying force is wrong, which makes us hypocrites. People need to get their crap together - this is insane. In these days, you can't trust almost anything you hear. This drags us down as a whole. However, I think I should jump on to the topic of our resources. I'm not afraid of us wasting our resources as much as I am of us wasting fresh water. I mean think about it - only 1% of the entire water on Earth can be drunk. This is crazy. Every single force in the world needs to give aid in helping this become less of a problem. I mean, one day we will run out of fresh water. Sure, we can "cleanse" water, but that takes too long, and it's not too efficient if we want to supply a planet with water. I still need to research this a bit more, but I sincerely see this as a good reason as to why we should just shut up about the differences in countries and join forces to help solve this problem.

This is the fault of the masses and their ignorance towards anything beyond their job, kids, ESPN Sportscenter, and People Magazine. Not sure how this relates for forcibly taking stuff but whatever.

Force? Yes. I do not care for humans I do not know well, so why act as though I do to acquire things from them? That being said, I hate competition. I believe it is cool for me to take things by force, but I become angry when other strangers do it.

Have you ever considered how these tiny actions add up? How much dissent the cumulative effect of these little selfish deeds causes, and how much of that could be reciprocated back to you?

[Sylux]

I said it's okay - I never said I do it, and I never specified whether or not it would be secretive.

[Delphinus]

Universally I believe even more so that it is ACCEPTABLE, but that is far different than ADVISABLE. If someone takes a game/gadget/possession from me by force, and there's nothing I can do to stop them, I accept it. I also make a mental reminder that this person is not a friend but a foe and that I will never help them unless they prove through strenuous means that they have changed. In most cases, acts of possession by force have adverse side affects.

Wrong. Quoth Machiavelli: "It is safer to be feared than to be loved if one cannot be both." Every successful government in history has attempted either to be feared and loved (as in democracy) or just to be feared (as in tyranny). Governments based on love, like neutral pacifist countries, have tended to be annexed by more warlike nations. Why shouldn't this apply to personal relationships? If one is both feared and loved, one is likely to be the leader of a group.

I generally find force isn't worth it.

Only if that force is (a) obvious, (b) resistible, and (c) disagreeable. If your actions are seen as righteous by the person they won't challenge your authority. If they have insufficient force to fight back they won't challenge your authority. And if they don't know you're using force against them, they have no grounds for challenging your authority.

That is, you can use deception (non-obvious force), intimidation (non-resistible force), and persuasion (non-disagreeable force) to control people in a far more effective way than the benefits of pacifism. The difference being - you rely on others if you have a mutual trust relationship with them, while you only rely on yourself if you have a position of authority over them. Why, then, would I voluntarily make a bond of trust with someone when dominating them would be more effective and produce greater results for me? (fyi, I prefer deception and persuasion irl; intimidation is mostly illegal and I'm a skinny prick)

Forcibly taking things breaks this trust and creates nothing but opposition for me.

See above.

Have you ever considered how these tiny actions add up? How much dissent the cumulative effect of these little selfish deeds causes, and how much of that could be reciprocated back to you?

Not if you have 1337 domination skills. See above.

TL;DR: Why not this?



EDIT: Oh god this is worrying. Read this wikipedia section. wtf

[Fenn]

Wrong. Quoth Machiavelli: "It is safer to be feared than to be loved if one cannot be both." Every successful government in history has attempted either to be feared and loved (as in democracy) or just to be feared (as in tyranny). Governments based on love, like neutral pacifist countries, have tended to be annexed by more warlike nations. Why shouldn't this apply to personal relationships? If one is both feared and loved, one is likely to be the leader of a group.

Sure! Maybe I am just bad at making myself clear, but it seems that whenever I try to explain my philosophy, I convince everyone I'm a pacifist. I'm not. I do think force is required in some personal relationships. I also think "force" is a very vague term.

Furthermore, it looks to me as though you are only looking at the immedeate effects. But I'll get to that below.

Only if that force is (a) obvious, (b) resistible, and (c) disagreeable. If your actions are seen as righteous by the person they won't challenge your authority. If they have insufficient force to fight back they won't challenge your authority. And if they don't know you're using force against them, they have no grounds for challenging your authority.

That is, you can use deception (non-obvious force), intimidation (non-resistible force), and persuasion (non-disagreeable force) to control people in a far more effective way than the benefits of pacifism. The difference being - you rely on others if you have a mutual trust relationship with them, while you only rely on yourself if you have a position of authority over them. Why, then, would I voluntarily make a bond of trust with someone when dominating them would be more effective and produce greater results for me? (fyi, I prefer deception and persuasion irl; intimidation is mostly illegal and I'm a skinny prick)

If they view your force as righteous it can hardly be clarified as a force against them.

If they have insufficient force to stop you they won't do anything until they can. Power is not static. If a person you stepped on manages to gain more power than you, not only will you fall, but you could suffer heavy retribution/revenge.

If they don't realize the force, they won't do anything until they find out. If a person you stepped on discovers the truth and has the power to punish you, you could suffer heavy retribution/revenge.

Suddeny, this whole force thing sounds just as risky as mutual trust. I'd like to propose then, a new argument:

Both force and mutual trust are risk/reward systems, and are only as effective as the person using them.

Also, it is possible to use a balanced philosophy which integrates both force and trust, as you suggested.

This balanced approach seems most logical because it provides you the greatest number of options. In my personal experience, force is more effective in the working world and in politics, economics, and large-scale human networks where getting to know every individual on an intimate, personal basis is arguably impossible. On the other hand, building mutual trust with family, friends, and other select individuals you meet and become intimate with can grant you power and options not accessable to the person who restricts themselves to their own person.

TL;DR: Why not this?



EDIT: Oh god this is worrying. Read this wikipedia section. wtf

DAMN! This certainly reveals the potential dangers of trust! It also, in my mind, unveals the importance of communication's networks between people. This situation is probably best countered via "references." Obviously I'm nnot refering to work references, but to other people who know a person and can vouch or warn against that person.

I'll have to find something to show you about the dangers of manipulation...

[Sunny]

Phhft, I have too many to list.

How about meat is fucking awesome? That is all I have to say. (In other words, I am totally loving eating meat and I don't think it should be shunned.:P)

[Sylux]

Also: Human is a good, kosher alternative to pork.