Morality and ethics: what are your values and why?

[CypressDahlia]

I'll let everyone else take this one. I'm tired of having debates with you, especially since you tend to drop out once you're backed into a corner. Then you come back two days later contesting something else when you have yet to disprove the last set of points.

So, since you don't believe in it, I refuse to respect your argument and will just overlook it. In fact, I refuse to respect you as a member of this forum, or your opinions in the future. It's highly hypocritical for a person to be freeloading off of standardized respect when they don't believe in it, so I will remedy that by no longer respecting you.

I recommend the rest of you do the same. Oh, and don't forget that it's okay to kill him because we save society abroad from a guy whose ego is bound to suffocate everyone around him.

[Fenn]

I'll let everyone else take this one. I'm tired of having debates with you, especially since you tend to drop out once you're backed into a corner. Then you come back two days later contesting something else when you have yet to disprove the last set of points.

So, since you don't believe in it, I refuse to respect your argument and will just overlook it. In fact, I refuse to respect you as a member of this forum, or your opinions in the future. It's highly hypocritical for a person to be freeloading off of standardized respect when they don't believe in it, so I will remedy that by no longer respecting you.

I recommend the rest of you do the same. Oh, and don't forget that it's okay to kill him because we save society abroad from a guy whose ego is bound to suffocate everyone around him.

Really Cypress? I have respect for you and I understand you not wanting to debate for certain reasons (I'm tired, not in the mood, uninterested), but if this is really the reason-he doesn't accept your own subjective standards-them my respect for you is lost.

Nothing in this world is "standardized," on the grounds of "it is right." If you want to prove that anything must be so, then you have to do it logically, not based on preexisting standards. I believe in potent empathy, compassion and respect, but not at all because they are the right thing to do. I don't care one bit whether they are "the right thing to do" because that is completely subjective. I do them because I believe that, logically, they are better than the alternatives.

[CypressDahlia]

No. My reason for refusing to debate with him is because he always drops out of debates in the middle. If someone kept dropping out of chess games in the middle, would you continue playing chess with him? It has nothing to do with my standards... lol In fact, if anything, I have simply agreed to disagree with him.

Besides, the point was: Delphinus does not believe in respect, so why should we respect him? Respect is standardized in the forums (observe the forum rules) for all members. Even if we don't dislike a member, we are required by the regulations to respect them. This is not an ethical argument in any aspect, it's simply part of the forum regulations. But if he, himself, does not believe in respect for others, why are we obligated to respect him? It becomes a double standard in his favor if we don't hold him up to the same requirements that we abide.

In short: if he does not believe in respect, he does not deserve respect.

I don't know what you're debating against but it doesn't seem like it's what I said. o_O

[Evil_Cake]

In short: if he does not believe in respect, he does not deserve respect.

are u sure

[Bacon_Barbarian]

Treat others like how you would like to be treated. If Del doesn't respect others, he shouldn't be respected. As a (possible) human being, he may deserve, but if he doesn't want to reciprocate it, well, that's his loss. On that note, Tit for Tat is a load of Horse Hockey. Why? Because Tit for Tat is equivalent to an Eye for and Eye, and an Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind. One must be prepared to let things go. By responding to violence you provoke more violence, and in general violence gets you no-where. Del's whole killing 5 people to save everyone in Africa from poverty is more Horse Hockey. Not only is it hypothetical, it's something that, even hypothetically, would never happen.

Anyway, the question at the begging of this thread is what are YOUR values. I stated mine, and I do have a moral code, one that I (try to) stick to. Do I care if you follow it? No. Am I trying to enforce it upon you? No. Would the world be better if you did? I think so, but who knows.

[Fenn]

Treat others like how you would like to be treated. If Del doesn't respect others, he shouldn't be respected. As a (possible) human being, he may deserve, but if he doesn't want to reciprocate it, well, that's his loss. On that note, Tit for Tat is a load of Horse Hockey. Why? Because Tit for Tat is equivalent to an Eye for and Eye, and an Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind. One must be prepared to let things go. By responding to violence you provoke more violence, and in general violence gets you no-where. Del's whole killing 5 people to save everyone in Africa from poverty is more Horse Hockey. Not only is it hypothetical, it's something that, even hypothetically, would never happen.

I agree that we must let things go--on the basis of intent. If someone, intending to do a good thing, does a bad thing, I expect that they accept whatever legal punishment is required, but I would not hold any grudge or act against them in any way, so long as the bad result was not caused by laziness or willful ignorance. On the other hand, those with bad intent should not only be justly punished, but I would also alienate them in one or more ways for so long as they continue said act. Every time I forgive them and they then repeat this act of bad intent, it will take much longer for me to forgive them.

Anyway, the question at the begging of this thread is what are YOUR values. I stated mine, and I do have a moral code, one that I (try to) stick to. Do I care if you follow it? No. Am I trying to enforce it upon you? No. Would the world be better if you did? I think so, but who knows.

Well the thread does encourage challenging of one's morals as well. If you cannot defend your morals then you may want to rethink them. Of course you don't have to take part in the debate though.


Anywho, another of my morals:
I believe in the value of generosity, sympathy, and charitability as tools for bettering my own life by bettering the life of those around me. I am a parasite in this way: I feed off of the happiness of others. I have found this mindset to be one of the purest and most indestructible ways to find happiness, because no bad can come of it to myself; only good. If, after securing my basic needs of course, I can be joyful and content merely by observing someone's smile, or giving a hug, or volunteering my time, it frees me from dependance on material possesions for happiness, which always pose a risk of letdown. This mindset does not inhibit me from seeking selfish goals; it merely creates a safety net in case those goals do not succeed.

[Bacon_Barbarian]

What is this shit, I don't even.

Are you telling me to consider the benefits of violence?

I'm pretty sure arguing killing is wrong would be the dumbest thing I've ever done, and I am most certainly not going to bother. Someone who disagrees with that is arguing that they should just kill whenever it may be slightly beneficial to them. That person doesn't deserve to be acknowledged, and should be permanently incarcerated as they are a (very) potential menace to society.

Anyway, the whole paragraph above the one about not enforcing my values is as much of an argument as I'm going to make. I agree with Del on @ least 1 thing: their are NO universal truths. That's why it's stupid to even argue. I just said what I believe to put it out there, not to make a point and bully people into agreeing with me.

[Sylux]

Treat others like how you would like to be treated.

No, treat others as they would have you treat them. You could be a sadomasochist for all I know.

What is this shit, I don't even.

Are you telling me to consider the benefits of violence?

I'm pretty sure arguing killing is wrong would be the dumbest thing I've ever done, and I am most certainly not going to bother. Someone who disagrees with that is arguing that they should just kill whenever it may be slightly beneficial to them. That person doesn't deserve to be acknowledged, and should be permanently incarcerated as they are a (very) potential menace to society.

Anyway, the whole paragraph above the one about not enforcing my values is as much of an argument as I'm going to make. I agree with Del on @ least 1 thing: their are NO universal truths. That's why it's stupid to even argue. I just said what I believe to put it out there, not to make a point and bully people into agreeing with me.

There are many benefits to violence: power, fear, and respect. However, violence against the innocent is much more different than violence against the motherfucking guiltiest of all bitches (i.e. those who have comitted the victimizing crimes of rape, torture, or murder towards the innocent, who have not in turn done so themselves).

[Delphinus]

No, treat others as they would have you treat them. You could be a sadomasochist for all I know.

I want you to give me all your money and property.

There are many benefits to violence: power, fear, and respect. However, violence against the innocent is much more different than violence against the motherfucking guiltiest of all bitches (i.e. those who have comitted the victimizing crimes of rape, torture, or murder towards the innocent, who have not in turn done so themselves).

P-p-prove that someone committing a crime means they should be punished. Prove justice/revenge is a valuable and/or beneficial thing to base a legal system upon.

[CypressDahlia]

The legal system is not based on justice or revenge, it's based on negative feedback for negative actions. It's a form of Operant Conditioning if anything.