|
| Thread: Moral Philosophy |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 08, 2008 08:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, the conditions that must be met to consider something immoral are relative (vary from society to society)
Society means a group a lot larger than 1 guy. That's what I meant in my previous post 
Quote:
If person A says person B is immoral, it has an absolute meaning: that person A sees person B bad for him. Now you get it? It doesn't mean that person B is "evil" (let's say person A is Hitler and person B is a Jew)
That is not my definition of immorality. Let's suppose, for a moment, that there is an universal code of morals. Now, will people like Hitler still think that they are moral? Why not, if they don't care or know about that universal code. Or does a murderer even care about morals? He may be immoral without even knowing it!
This is the point made by Corribus a long time ago. Oh and being "bad" does not necessarily have an association with morality. What about sacrifice? I mean, it surely is bad for the person. It might give them a temporary emotional benefit, but that's it.
Similar with drugs, a temporary "high" feeling, and then addiction. Obviously since people that consider drugs bad stay away from them, why don't they in the case of sacrifice?
"Bad" is not a good term to describe morality I would say
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 03:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
simply do not "care" about the morals or if they are called immoral, they only care about their pleasure
I'm sure that in some cases they don't, and in some cases they do, but the pleasure overrides it.
Quote:
Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor. He is not immoral, even though basically he may not affect society or might even be bad for it (the law says so). Mvass will tell me that the rich worked hard for that money... well, it's a case which I consider moral so it's why we disagree.
So if I steal from Bill Gates to give to a drugged-up bum, I'm a hero? No. Robin Hood is one of the most evil archetypal characters out of all of them. He takes from those who earn and gives it to those who don't. Robin Hood is the ideological ancestor of Karl Marx. If people work for their money (and don't violate people's rights in doing so), then they have a right to what they have earned! How would you like it if someone broke into your house and stole everything you owned, so they could give it to the welfare queens?
Quote:
Morality has uses beyond society
Such as?
Quote:
Obviously since people that consider drugs bad stay away from them, why don't they in the case of sacrifice?
There are a couple of reasons for that. First, drugs are looked down upon in general society, while sacrifice is praised. Second, part of the reason that they sacrifice is inertia. They subconsciously expect an emotional benefit, but might not get one (if they sacrifice their lives).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 02:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So if I steal from Bill Gates to give to a drugged-up bum, I'm a hero? No. Robin Hood is one of the most evil archetypal characters out of all of them. He takes from those who earn and gives it to those who don't. Robin Hood is the ideological ancestor of Karl Marx. If people work for their money (and don't violate people's rights in doing so), then they have a right to what they have earned! How would you like it if someone broke into your house and stole everything you owned, so they could give it to the welfare queens?
Frankly I doubt there's much to change your opinion...
as for him being 'evil', the D&D system classifies him as Chaotic Good. You just have a weird habit of loving society (lawful) and thus make it good, while in a more complex sense it has absolutely nothing to do with 'good' or 'evil', but more with 'lawful' and 'chaotic' (if you want more explanations, read some D&D alignment system).
Quote:
Quote:
Morality has uses beyond society
Such as?
Aw man, must I repeat myself again and again? I already gave enough examples with "solo" aliens (that is, an alien that is the only one of its kind) or let's say "solo" creatures.
Quote:
There are a couple of reasons for that. First, drugs are looked down upon in general society, while sacrifice is praised. Second, part of the reason that they sacrifice is inertia. They subconsciously expect an emotional benefit, but might not get one (if they sacrifice their lives).
The key word there is IMO
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 02:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Frankly I doubt there's much to change your opinion...
as for him being 'evil', the D&D system classifies him as Chaotic Good. You just have a weird habit of loving society (lawful) and thus make it good, while in a more complex sense it has absolutely nothing to do with 'good' or 'evil', but more with 'lawful' and 'chaotic' (if you want more explanations, read some D&D alignment system).
I agree with TheDeath here. Robin Hood was not "evil", because "lawful" =/= "good" and "chaotic" =/= "evil"
Evil would have been if he stole the money for himself, which was not the case.
For more information read here
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 04:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Frankly I doubt there's much to change your opinion...
Try anyway.
Quote:
as for him being 'evil', the D&D system classifies him as Chaotic Good
Really? Because I would classify him as Chaotic Evil.Quote:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
Sounds like Robin Hood. Of course, he doesn't oppress everybody, just the rich.
Quote:
I already gave enough examples with "solo" aliens
Yes, but that's not an actual "use".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 04:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Really? Because I would classify him as Chaotic Evil.Quote:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
Sounds like Robin Hood. Of course, he doesn't oppress everybody, just the rich.
He didn't do it for pleasure first (which is a characteristic of Chaotic Evil). Second, he didn't kill them without a purpose -- and he didn't kill most rich people (the others who died were simply those who abused their wealth).
oh, and Robin Hood did not do it for himself.
Quote:
Yes, but that's not an actual "use".
I don't know the difference
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 04:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Second, he didn't kill them without a purpose
But he killed them. Killing is only okay if the person being killed has been duly convicted of murder.
Quote:
the others who died were simply those who abused their wealth
Which is both highly subjective and none of his business. If I earn money, it is nobody's business what I do with it. (As long as I don't use it to bribe the government or hire assassins, or something like that.)
Quote:
I don't know the difference
The difference is that there is no actual purpose in it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 05:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But he killed them. Killing is only okay if the person being killed has been duly convicted of murder.
That is, only if you are "lawful" and do it by the law
Quote:
Which is both highly subjective and none of his business. If I earn money, it is nobody's business what I do with it. (As long as I don't use it to bribe the government or hire assassins, or something like that.)
If he was neutral, then I agree, none of his business 
Quote:
The difference is that there is no actual purpose in it.
"purpose" is vaguely used by you to imply some kind of personal reward. Maybe he does it because of emotional (e.g: love)?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 05:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That is, only if you are "lawful" and do it by the law
"You know, I don't like the way you're looking at me." *BOOM!* The law is necessary to prevent vigilantism.
Quote:
If he was neutral, then I agree, none of his business
But he wasn't neutral. He was evil, so he stole their money. Let's say you see Bill Gates walking down the street with a check for a billion dollars that he's going to donate to charity. You run up to him with a gun, and say, "Write me a check for 30 billion dollars, so I can give it to the poor!" Stealing is wrong, no matter what your intentions are to do with what you havve stolen.
Quote:
"purpose" is vaguely used by you to imply some kind of personal reward. Maybe he does it because of emotional (e.g: love)?
Yes, but there's an emotional reward there for a reason: because it is an action that helps society.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 05:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"You know, I don't like the way you're looking at me." *BOOM!* The law is necessary to prevent vigilantism.
Preventing the above won't change that guy's 'mentality' in any way (alignment), thus he would still be evil. It's why laws and morals are independent of each other.
Quote:
But he wasn't neutral. He was evil, so he stole their money. Let's say you see Bill Gates walking down the street with a check for a billion dollars that he's going to donate to charity. You run up to him with a gun, and say, "Write me a check for 30 billion dollars, so I can give it to the poor!" Stealing is wrong, no matter what your intentions are to do with what you havve stolen.
Stealing is wrong -- if "wrong" means against the law, then yes.
Good doesn't have to obey the law (the law can as well say black people suck). What you describe above with the "no one's business" and all that, is a neutral approach (more precisely, lawful neutral approach). Being against the law doesn't mean you're evil -- it's why I don't want to put morals into a law discussion (morals -> good/evil, law -> lawful/chaotic).
Quote:
Yes, but there's an emotional reward there for a reason: because it is an action that helps society.
The solo alien doesn't give a **** for society. In fact, most good people don't even think about the 'society', but about their actions, not whether they are beneficial to the society or not.
no wonder we disagree, since you use the "good = benefit society" definitions
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 06:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Preventing the above won't change that guy's 'mentality'
"It is true that behavior cannot be legislated, and legislation cannot make you love me, but legislation can restrain you from lynching me, and I think that is kind of important." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Quote:
Stealing is wrong -- if "wrong" means against the law, then yes.
"Wrong" means "harmful for society". And stealing is harmful for society, just like murder.
Quote:
Good doesn't have to obey the law (the law can as well say black people suck).
Yes, of course the law can be morally wrong, but not in this case. That is, stealing is wrong no matter which way you look at it.
Quote:
The solo alien doesn't give a **** for society.
If he is moral, then his actions benefit society.
Quote:
In fact, most good people don't even think about the 'society', but about their actions, not whether they are beneficial to the society or not.
But their actions are considered moral because they benefit society.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 06:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"It is true that behavior cannot be legislated, and legislation cannot make you love me, but legislation can restrain you from lynching me, and I think that is kind of important." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
So? That doesn't mean that he is morally changed, but only because he is forced by the law (else: punishment).
Quote:
"Wrong" means "harmful for society". And stealing is harmful for society, just like murder.
Wrong means "broken"
Quote:
Yes, of course the law can be morally wrong, but not in this case. That is, stealing is wrong no matter which way you look at it.
Not necessarily (example was given already with Robin Hood but you don't take it).
Quote:
If he is moral, then his actions benefit society.
Quote:
But their actions are considered moral because they benefit society.
There's no way this discussion is going to be productive (as if it was since page 3 or something) if you will keep to your ideas, I mean why have the discussion then in the first place? Aren't we supposed to discuss what is moral and why it can be absolute, etc... but you seem to think that "moral = benefit society", which is ok from your opinion (which is why you consider it relative), but you use it as if it's a fact or something
I mean, I gave examples as to why morals can be considered something different than "benefit society", and you reply with the same thing that I actually was arguing about? It's like using argument A to reply to my argument B, when my argument B was already talking/arguing about argument A
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 06:30 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 18:31, 09 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
And stealing is harmful for society, just like murder.
I don't think so, it is not that absolute. It depends on the reason of stealing and what you do with the money stolen. Do you really think that if someone somehow manages to steal from the damn government (like 75%) and give to all people (shared equally) is harmful for the society? No way, the taxes are harmful for the society. The damn government uses OUR money to buy new laptops/cars every day (and most people from the government don't even know how to use laptops!). Heck, I wouldn't even be surprised to find out that they "burn" money there. Do you think this is good for the society?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 06:31 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
So? That doesn't mean that he is morally changed, but only because he is forced by the law (else: punishment).
And what's wrong with that? You can't force someone to change their mind, but you can prevent them from harming others. Such is the function of the law. The law can't change somebody's morals, but it can enforce the non-aggression principle.
Quote:
Wrong means "broken"
That's one meaning, but it's not the one that we're talking about.
Quote:
Not necessarily (example was given already with Robin Hood but you don't take it).
The KKK hates blacks. You hate people who earned what they have, and think that they "owe it to society", or something like that. Not that big of a difference, there.
Quote:
you will keep to your ideas, I mean why have the discussion then in the first place?
If I don't keep to my ideas, then what's the point of the discussion?
Me: A.
You: B.
Me: Oh, you're right, it's B.
See, that's a pointless discussion. Of course, you should try to convince me, and I should try to convince you, but we shouldn't give up our views just because someone disagrees with them.
Quote:
I mean, I gave examples as to why morals can be considered something different than "benefit society", and you reply with the same thing that I actually was arguing about?
That's because you've already given those arguments before, and and I have already responded to them.
Asheera:
Quote:
Do you really think that if someone somehow manages to steal from the damn government (like 75%) and give to all people (shared equally) is harmful for the society?
Ah, but taxation in itself has its own problems (it is coercive, although it may be permissible), so it doesn't work quite that way. An individual earns his/her money by working. The government, on the other hand, takes people's money. That's a critical difference.
Quote:
No way, the taxes are harmful for the society. The damn government uses OUR money to buy new laptops/cars every day (and most people from the government don't even know how to use laptops!). Heck, I wouldn't even be surprised to find out that they "burn" money there. Do you think this is good for the society?
Here you're confusing the purpose of a government and how that is carried out. A government is supposed to protect property rights (plus education, and a minimal role in the economy), and it has to tax in order to have money for that. Unfortunately, much of that money's spending is redirected by the influence of the special interests to stuff like corn subsidies, unnecessary military build-ups, and other examples of wastefulness and inefficiency. But the government is a different kind of entity than an individual. The government isn't really a member of society, since a society is made up of individuals, and the government isn't an individual. As regards stealing from the government, that depends on the government in question. Obviously the government in a country like Zimbabwe or North Korea is different from the government in the United States.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 06:38 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:41, 09 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
And what's wrong with that? You can't force someone to change their mind, but you can prevent them from harming others. Such is the function of the law. The law can't change somebody's morals, but it can enforce the non-aggression principle.
When did I say it's "something wrong with that"?? I only said that morals and laws are very different, that's it
Quote:
That's one meaning, but it's not the one that we're talking about.
I know, it's why I don't like the word we're talking about myself... it's too 'relative' 
Quote:
The KKK hates blacks. You hate people who earned what they have, and think that they "owe it to society", or something like that. Not that big of a difference, there.
I don't hate people who earned what they have. (in this example)
I hate them when they are selfish about it -- not every "job" is fair (in fact, it's subjective, so it can't be).
Quote:
If I don't keep to my ideas, then what's the point of the discussion?
Me: A.
You: B.
Me: Oh, you're right, it's B.
See, that's a pointless discussion. Of course, you should try to convince me, and I should try to convince you, but we shouldn't give up our views just because someone disagrees with them.
Whoa I never said that you need to agree with me -- but to discuss about whatever we are talking about. But when we discuss about one view (discuss =/= agree), we shouldn't use the other view as a 'fact' or 'argument' against it -- merely perhaps as a comparison or example!
I never meant that you have to agree with me. 
Quote:
That's because you've already given those arguments before, and and I have already responded to them.
See above. When I talking about absolute morals, I'm usually referring to what I wrote (my view, so to speak), so in that case, we should discuss about it, rather than countering ourselves with our different views. Countering a view with a view is not very productive -- rather, discussing about a given view is better.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 06:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not necessarily (example was given already with Robin Hood but you don't take it).
The KKK hates blacks. You hate people who earned what they have, and think that they "owe it to society", or something like that. Not that big of a difference, there.
What if the system is oppressive?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 06:44 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
I only said that morals and laws are very different, that's it
But I was arguing that the non-aggression principle is a fundamental moral, and the government should enforce that.
Quote:
I hate them when they are selfish about it -- not every "job" is fair
Life isn't fair. Get used to it. And they have the right to keep their own money, and the right to give it away, if they want to. It is one thing for them to voluntarily give it away, and entirely another to steal it from them.
Quote:
Countering a view with a view is not very productive -- rather, discussing about a given view is better.
All right. Let's continue.
Minion:
Quote:
What if the system is oppressive?
What do you mean by "the system"?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 06:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But I was arguing that the non-aggression principle is a fundamental moral, and the government should enforce that.
That may be true, but morals are not the one who punish/enforce anything (that's what I understood previously).
Quote:
Life isn't fair. Get used to it. And they have the right to keep their own money, and the right to give it away, if they want to. It is one thing for them to voluntarily give it away, and entirely another to steal it from them.
The "right" is based on laws, not morals.
But anyway, when they give it voluntarily, then you're right, it's a difference -- they're good. Otherwise, they're neutral, or if they are tyrants, evil (i.e use the money to "enslave" the weak, not literally).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 06:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean by "the system"?
Well talking about the Robin Hood example, where people are poor because the rich own the lands they are working and then later taxate all the profits for themselves. A one type of feudalism or feudal System. Bad choise of words from my part probably.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 07:02 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
morals are not the one who punish/enforce anything
Ignoring the emotional benefit/penalty, I agree here.
Quote:
The "right" is based on laws, not morals.
No. Rights come from morals. Laws are supposed to protect rights, but not create them.
Quote:
But anyway, when they give it voluntarily, then you're right, it's a difference -- they're good.
And those who take from them are evil.
Quote:
use the money to "enslave" the weak, not literally
Could you clarify on this statement?
Minion:
Quote:
people are poor because the rich own the lands they are working and then later taxate all the profits for themselves
Well, I don't see anything wrong with the rich owning the lands, but they shouldn't tax all of the profits. But feudalism is a different system. Under feudalism, the government doesn't derive its power from the consent of the governed. I'm talking more about free-market capitalism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
