Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 217

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

  1. #21
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,338
    @Saphira: ACQUITTED. In this case the needs of the others to survive outweighed his want to choose whether or not to be eaten, in a similar way to dangerous criminals in normal society. Of course they still want to be free, but locking a serial killer in jail (depriving him of personal freedom and choice) protects a vast number of people from potential death. We don't get campaigns to set prisoners free, do we? So why should these guys be convicted of anything other than necessity? His opting out of the system (basic law) causes a slight problem, but all that means is that he's not a 'citizen' under said basic laws and that he therefore has no rights.

    EDIT: Though if he'd been a little smarter he would have killed the others and eaten them instead. He's perfectly entitled to defend himself just like they're entitled to eat him.

    Regarding my ethics: I don't believe there is an objective good or evil nor that anyone has the obligation to follow any moral principles or laws for the benefit of anyone but themselves. Nonetheless I believe that altruism is the best philosophy most of the time, since it holds society together. Society itself helps the individual in a number of ways, and therefore the destruction of society is in nobody's interest. However, one instance of breaking the law will not destroy society; so long as the majority of people follow the law most of the time society will do just fine, ergo crime is permissible for individuals so long as most people don't do it. A conversation with Kodos on AIM came up with the following 'golden rule' of self-interest:

    "Good is that which is recognizing man's freedom to do what he can, while aiding the continuance of his freedom to do what he wills."
    Last edited by Delphinus; 04-20-2011 at 08:06 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

  2. #22
    Sir-Mass-a-Lot Sylux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    7,452
    What about when wills collide? Such as the will to rape and the will to not have sex until marriage/be raped?

  3. #23
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rio View Post
    You only have to follow what you think are right and wrong to the best of your abilities at that time.

    The way I see it, there's two parts to this. The first part is your own morals and ethics but then there is the broader one which is enforced by society as a whole.
    That's very much what I believe. When it comes to others, If they aren't hurting anyone's means of survival and free will then they are fine. Also, some concepts like scams, cheating, and lying that most people consider "wrong," I tolerate in others but act accordingly. Example: a person cheats to win a game. So long as no one was harmed, I do not consider that wrong because they were taking advantage of an opportunity. However, I respond by not playing, supporting, or closely affiliating myself with them.

    For myself, I hold a far stricter code, because I know the kind of life I want to live. Most importantly, I make a commitment to helping others and broader service opportunities because I've learned how rewarding and beneficial such acts can be. Seriously, I can't understand why most people are so opposed to serving those in need. I don't do it out of some moral obligation; I do it because of how much more beneficial it is to be generous than selfish. Of course I try to strike a balance, but more and more I have been gravitating towards service.

  4. #24
    Moderator Psy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I call it many names. The two that seem to be most accurate tho are "Hell" and "Work".
    Posts
    1,345
    I try not to physically mentally emotionally and directly hurt people or animals as much as possible. If i hurt some one indirectly i probably couldnt help it or it was unavoidable. I cant allways avoid hurting some one emotionally or saying somthing that messes with their heads a bit but i try. I may be part of the cause for some animal cruelty (slaughtering and all that) but i cant say for sure but i would stop eating meat or persue an alternative if i could prove a direct connection.
    I dont steal. no comment on the non physical aspect of stealing.

  5. #25
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Delphinus View Post
    However, one instance of breaking the law will not destroy society; so long as the majority of people follow the law most of the time society will do just fine, ergo crime is permissible for individuals so long as most people don't do it.
    How could you possibly draw a line on this? You're saying a randomly defined minority of people have the right to commit crimes but you bar the remaining majority of the same right. That's highly hypocritical and doesn't work at all in practicality.

    We don't get campaigns to set prisoners free, do we?
    Those are two entirely different contexts. A criminal is a criminal because they decide to defy the law, despite being readily aware of all the consequences. They get locked up because they knowingly relinquish their freedoms, often at the expense of another person's. The man on the island did no such thing.

    -------

    And TBH, Clockhand, I don't fully agree that "right" and "wrong" are dictated by society alone. Surely, society plays a huge role in deciding our values, but a lot of our values derive from innate sensibilities. The desire to live, for example, or the avoidance of pain and discomfort. Happiness and sadness, honor and even jealousy (as evidenced by the extreme anti-adultery laws of early civilizations). Fear and paranoia, especially. What I'm saying is: a lot of our laws come naturally to us.

    -------

    In response to Saphira: CONVICTED. The person backed out of the lottery, therefore the others' decision to enter his name anyway and follow through with killing and eating him was a form of premeditated murder. What's really stupid is: you have 4 out of 5 people willing to be eaten, but you're going to eat the one guy who doesn't want to be eaten? I mean, come on, how does that even make sense? If it was any of the other 4 people who was eaten, then it would be willful sacrifice, not murder, and I would vote ACQUITTED. Sadly, that's not the case.

  6. #26
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    Cyp@ what delph describes is how the world works. If you kill someone and you have money, you get 5 years. If you kill someone and you are poor, you have 30 or more.

    Also moral and ethic determinate the judgment over peoples actions, so it's the society who build those, this is why in feudal japan was ok to fuck a little kid, in some cultures you can talk of certain way or subjects if you are not in the right place, and so. Desire to live or fear to pain are not moral or ethic principle, but existentialists, and those has worked to argument the actual occidentals conceptions of what is moral and ethically right and whats not. But this argument only gave in occident, and as other cultures still have moral and ethic principles without this argument, we can easily deduce that moral and ethic don't need arguments to exist.

    But it does need to understand principles between the people. To say what is good or wrong, they need equal values and certain concepts to build the moral and ethic of a group.
    Last edited by ClockHand; 04-21-2011 at 12:15 PM.

  7. #27
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,338
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    How could you possibly draw a line on this? You're saying a randomly defined minority of people have the right to commit crimes but you bar the remaining majority of the same right. That's highly hypocritical and doesn't work at all in practicality.
    No crimes are morally wrong, because there is no absolute right or wrong. The reason I say that the majority should follow the law the majority of the time is an entirely pragmatic one: it benefits them for society to stay together, mass law-breaking would cause social collapse, and ergo it benefits them to ensure that the law is followed most of the time, no matter how absurd those laws are. On the other hand, when a person is not benefited by the law as it stands, it serves their interests to rebel against that particular law, or in the case of a corrupt government, to rebel against the entire state. Whether or not they gain enough support to effect social change is a completely different matter, but if they do then it makes it obvious that the law does not aid all social groups, and thus that the state has failed in its obligations regarding the social contract. Ergo, the state is illegitimate and ought to fall.

    Those are two entirely different contexts. A criminal is a criminal because they decide to defy the law, despite being readily aware of all the consequences. They get locked up because they knowingly relinquish their freedoms, often at the expense of another person's. The man on the island did no such thing.
    Like I said, by opting out of this very small system of laws he relinquishes his citizenship, ergo the others do not have to treat him in the same way as they treat 'citizens' who have agreed to the cannibalism deal. He is essentially not entitled to the rights that the others have, so they can treat him however the hell they like, up to and including eating him. Disobeying the law is slightly different, agreed, but only because the criminal wants to obtain the benefits of society while not agreeing to the sacrifices of freedom necessary to maintain it. The criminal is still a person with regards to the state: someone who opts out of the system is not.
    Last edited by Delphinus; 04-21-2011 at 12:29 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

  8. #28
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Clockhand: Your example is sorely out of context. It was okay to fuck little kids in feudal everywhere because the life expectancy back then was little longer than 30 years. Hell, marriage occurred at 15, if not sooner. So that was relative to the times, not relative to moral standings. And Delphinus said nothing like that (@money and stuff), but I do get your point. But that's not an issue of legal inequality. A rich person and a poor person will get the same opportunities to appeal in front of a court. It's just a matter of whether or not they can afford to exploit the same resources (obv. poor man cannot). But separation of rich and poor is not a moral issue; that's just Capitalism at work. Yay, America~~!

    Delphinus: You fail to answer my question. Where do you draw the line? How do you determine who deserves to be part of that minority who can break the law? What gives you more right to commit crime A than the next person? A simple number or quota? You see, you can't simultaneously break and maintain law. That results in legal inequality, which defeats the purpose of distinct, individual rights. So, again, your thought process is both highly impractical and hypocritical. I have no doubt a state //would// fall under that system because it is innately unfair. Luckily, our government doesn't work like that. Hence, our state hasn't fallen (well, aside from the budget...).

    And really, you consider drawing lots a government? I don't even know why we're touching on the subject of citizenship. Does that mean that if I make a sports bet with someone and they back out, I can forcibly oblige them to pay the bet because they opted out of my system? You really understate the scale on which a legitimate government runs. Likewise, in a state of general lawlessness, how can you justify anything under legal terms? But let's go down that road anyway:

    The other 4 are also in violation of "basic law" because, since the 5th opted out of the system, they cannot force him to oblige to its laws (like a "diplomat"). But they did. Hell, the only justification they have for eating the man is because his name was drawn on the ballot. But since he opted out, they shouldn't be able to enforce that. Therefore, they no longer have a justification for eating the man, in which case they are just murderers (and cannibals, lawl).

    But see, even that's ridiculous. So attempting to apply legal logic to this is pointless. It's five dudes on an island.

  9. #29
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    I think my example was not well understood. In feudal japan was ok to fuck kids (boy and girls), not because the age expectations (because a 7 years old girl is unable to give birth a baby unless she is a menstruation machine) but because you could (simple). Different from feudal europe, where obviously where cases of pedophile, but also some people was punished (people could do it, but it wasn't well seeing, unless you have power at your side).

    Also in both cases is not even for the age expectations, because I'm not talking only about females or females ables to give birth.

  10. #30
    Sir-Mass-a-Lot Sylux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    7,452
    If the other 4 were truly smart, they would have allowed the man who opted out to die on his own of starvation while they ate the unlucky 1/4, and then they would've eaten the 5th after he died. The 5th probably opted out because he thought there was a good chance of rescue within 3 days. They took away his right to live because he did not want in his system. You know who else did that? Soviet Russia. They killed all who opposed their immoral, restrictive Hobbesian government without any right to do so. The world should be all about individual freedom and happiness, and equal opportunity for economic success or failure.

    @Clock: Are you also making an analogy to ancient Greece with your last line?

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
  •