Morality and ethics: what are your values and why?

[Sylux]

I get my morals from a religious text because I'm a fucking idiot.

Is it Buddhist

[CypressDahlia]

Delphinus, I'm still waiting for you to go out and relinquish the respect of your peers, value of your properties and attest the worthlessness of your well-being to the people around you. If you believe these things are worthless, why don't you put your beliefs into practice? Declare that you are worthless to the rest of the world, please. Lead by example.

You are reaping the benefits of being part of a society that upholds moral values, despite not believing in any of it. The respect you receive unconditionally, the property that is "rightfully" yours and the happiness that people try to facilitate are all things you don't believe in, but you seem to have no problem accepting them. In short: you are a hypocrite.

Unless, of course, you are willing to give me a personal invitation to treat you as if you're worthless. Show me your conviction.

[Harvester_Of_Sorrow]

Is it Buddhist

Yeah, why not.

[Fenn]

Delphinus, I'm still waiting for you to go out and relinquish the respect of your peers, value of your properties and attest the worthlessness of your well-being to the people around you. If you believe these things are worthless, why don't you put your beliefs into practice? Declare that you are worthless to the rest of the world, please. Lead by example.

You are reaping the benefits of being part of a society that upholds moral values, despite not believing in any of it. The respect you receive unconditionally, the property that is "rightfully" yours and the happiness that people try to facilitate are all things you don't believe in, but you seem to have no problem accepting them. In short: you are a hypocrite.

Unless, of course, you are willing to give me a personal invitation to treat you as if you're worthless. Show me your conviction.

Cypress, Delphinus may in fact not believe in these things, but looking back at page 5 he never denied them; he asked you to justify them.

Morals are not natural laws, and they are not supreme, infalliable principles; they are man-made systems and codes. They arose from a need, or logical inference, not from the Big Bang or Genesis or any other origin of the universe you believe in. They do not exist as anything more than ideas.

That being said, I believe in respect, and dignity. The different between you and I is I have a logical basis for my belief, whereas (from what I have perceived) you cling to it as something you learned and accept without any basis other than "it is right and cannot be argued against." Like I said to Bacon, you need logical support to give your values any worth or merit. It would also help if you defined respect.

Also, if you do believe Delphinus is wrong and simply leeching off of your good will and respect, revoke it. Take it away, and give him no second thought. Save your respect for those who deserve it, until he either realizes what he has lost and submits to your values, or parts ways. But saying "if you don't share my values I'm not debating them with you" is ignorant and pointless.

[CypressDahlia]

Cypress, Delphinus may in fact not believe in these things, but looking back at page 5 he never denied them.

If he does not believe in these things, why does he need them? Why should others go out of their way to respect and protect him when he does not feel the same moral obligation? You do realize that is a double standard in Delphinus' favor, right? Lol.

I pose this challenge to him because I want him to realize his own hypocrisy. Delphinus needs to make it clear that people do not need to waste their time respecting him or facilitating his happiness. He is part of a very tiny majority of people who do not find value in these things, therefore he needs to announce that he is part of that minority. Because our society operates under a standard of common courtesy, we cannot make that assumption for ourselves. We are taught that everyone pursues happiness and to facilitate (or at least, not to interfere with) their pursuit. Therefore, I expect him to formally invite us and the people around him to not give a rat's ass about his well-being.

People are too nice to assume they're allowed to treat you as if you're worthless. So you need to come out and give us a personal invitation. Unless, of course, you find more value in respect, property and happiness than you're willing to admit.

But saying "if you don't share my values I'm not debating them with you" is ignorant and pointless.

No. My reason for refusing to debate with him is because he always drops out of debates in the middle.

Please read next time before you try to put words in my mouth. He asks for proof, then as soon as the argument becomes too intense, he leaves for a couple days. Then he comes back later, asking for proof of something else as if the last debate already resolved itself (or, worse yet, assuming he is in the position to burden the rest of us with proof). I have never, of the half dozen debates I've had involving Delphinus, finished a single one with this kid.

The different between you and I is I have a logical basis for my belief, whereas...you cling to it as something you learned and accept without any basis other than "it is right and cannot be argued against."

What the hell are you talking about, dude? I haven't shared a single moral or ethical belief in this thread. Everything I've been talking about has had to do with reason, law and plain-sight observations. Name a single purely ethical argument I've made in this entire thread.

[Delphinus]

Delphinus, I'm still waiting for you to go out and relinquish the respect of your peers, value of your properties and attest the worthlessness of your well-being to the people around you. If you believe these things are worthless, why don't you put your beliefs into practice?

It benefits me both physically and mentally, as an individual, to reap the harvest of respect, property, my well-being, and the like. On the other hand it doesn't benefit me to give these things to others and, in the case of property, may outright disadvantage me. I have no obligation to give these things to others: they have no obligation to give them to me either, but if they want to, who am I to refuse them?

EDIT: And the reason this doesn't justify philanthropy and the like on the principle of enlightened self-interest? Virtually every time I gain currency, someone else has it taken from them. For this to not be true, the economy would need to be expanding in excess of the population growth, and the money from the economy's expansion would need to be divided equally - which it isn't.

EDIT 2: FYI, UK economic growth is hovering at around a 0.43% growth rate over the last 18 months - the population increase in the UK was 0.7% as of 2009. Zero-sum economics is the best-case scenario - the average person is getting poorer.

[CypressDahlia]

So you admit to being both an opportunist and a hypocrite.

Besides, "benefit" is just as subjective as "value". In fact, in order to benefit from something, it entails that the receiving party values it in some aspect. So I don't know how you can talk about benefits when they're the same as values in principle.

[Delphinus]

The difference in this case is that a value is something one aspires to or wants to abide by. Values can be thought of as commandments: "Thou shalt not kill!", "Thou shalt obey the law!", and are entirely unjustifiable. By benefits I just mean things like food, water and other resources that I can use and enjoy. There's no justification for me possessing 'property' per se, but if I grab myself a double-barrelled shotgun and drive other people away from a large house while claiming it's for my exclusive use, then I can do whatever I want with the house - it becomes my property because nobody else is strong enough to take it from me (yes, this justifies theft etc.). If others are fettered by their morals, then that is good for me, as it means that my property is safe. I have no obligation to make others behave as I behave, only the obligation to follow my beliefs.

Which I'm attempting to do. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

EDIT: Also, isn't opportunism a good thing?

[CypressDahlia]

By benefits I just mean things like food, water and other resources that I can use and enjoy.

Yes, because usefulness and enjoyment are not entirely relative. Especially the latter, which is entirely //not// a matter of opinion. [/sarcasm]

Property is valued in a society that //values// property. Money is valued in a society that embraces money as wealth. No object is innately valuable. An object only becomes valuable when we attach value to it, which usually just means we use it to represent some abstract idea. Going back to the money example: money in itself is absolutely worthless; just paper. But money represents the abstract idea of "wealth", which is what makes it sought after. Understand? So to say "benefits" are any more objective than values is absurd. And to argue "benefit" on behalf of logic is just as bad.

The only true benefits are the ones that keep us alive. Everything else is relative and/or preferential.

...if I grab myself a double-barreled shotgun and drive other people away from a large house while claiming it's for my exclusive use...it becomes my property.

I'm guessing you also support military occupation, grand theft auto, kidnapping and mugging, too, right?

I have no obligation to make others behave as I behave, only the obligation to follow my beliefs.

Yes, because hiding your beliefs in fear of losing things you deem intrinsically worthless is a great show of conviction. You have failed your own objective.

And opportunism, by definition, is exploitive in nature. In this case, you are creating a double standard for yourself. In a way, it's even worse than a double standard. At least double standards are thoroughly expressed. Whereas yours derives from the fear of practicing what you preach.

[Delphinus]

The only true benefits are the ones that keep us alive. Everything else is relative and/or preferential.

The above paragraph was pretty pointless. What I enjoy, what is useful to me is what I attempt to obtain. Whether it's relative and/or preferential is meaningless - so long as I value it, I will strive for it. If I enjoy fine dining, why would I not try and gain the resources to dine finely? It may not be objectively something to value, but that really doesn't matter in this case. What I'm arguing against is not the difference between people's ambitions, but the imposition of fetters like 'morality' that prevent people from achieving their ambitions.

I'm guessing you also support military occupation, grand theft auto, kidnapping and mugging, too, right?

If it benefits me; if it is indifferent to me, I'm indifferent to it; if it harms or threatens to harm me, I will fight against it.

Yes, because hiding your beliefs in fear of losing things you deem intrinsically worthless is a great show of conviction. You have failed your own objective.

Objectively worthless, yes. Subjectively worthless? No. There are many things I enjoy that others don't; there are many things others enjoy that I don't. The only difference is that in the pursuit of these subjective desires I'm willing to ignore things that get in my way.

And opportunism, by definition, is exploitive in nature. In this case, you are creating a double standard for yourself.

Good. A double standard in my favour helps me.