Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK - but is the source of your personal ethics and morality come from this creator or from yourself?

Do you think that helping starving children in Bangladesh is the right thing to do only because an omnipotent being says so? Or do you think there is some essential moral quality to helping others?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Or do you think there is some essential moral quality to helping others?

I don't understand what that means. Absence some sort of higher law or code the word moral has no meaning. What is your definition of morality?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand what that means. Absence some sort of higher law or code the word moral has no meaning. What is your definition of morality?

Why does a general code of human behavior have to come from a higher source?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand what that means. Absence some sort of higher law or code the word moral has no meaning. What is your definition of morality?

Ty looks at what America has done and starts with the assumption that was morally wrong.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why does a general code of human behavior have to come from a higher source?

Because I don't know of any other source. Do you? From just using rationality and reason can you come up with a moral code? Or a code that is not based purely on self interest?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
From just using rationality and reason can you come up with a moral code? Or a code that is not based purely on self interest?

Why couldn't the latter be a basis? While one can asail both the logic and the conclusions, haven't both Mill and Rawls (as well as others) done this, essentially?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Because I don't know of any other source. Do you? From just using rationality and reason can you come up with a moral code? Or a code that is not based purely on self interest?

I think the rules that people seem to agree on universally(generally don't kill, or at least not indiscriminately; help at least some of the younger weak live) have evolved as survival mechanisms.

I don't think there are a ton of "rules" that people generally agree on. They seem to quibble about the details. Can you think of other examples?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Because I don't know of any other source. Do you? From just using rationality and reason can you come up with a moral code? Or a code that is not based purely on self interest?

Whoa. For a RINO, spanky, you're getting all Dobson on us today.


Stop it, and go get a philosophy book. This stuff makes baby Aristotle cry.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Whoa. For a RINO, spanky, you're getting all Dobson on us today.


Stop it, and go get a philosophy book. This stuff makes baby Aristotle cry.

2. New question: Say you could start up a whole new tax structure how would balance the burdens between wealthly/poor/inheritance/gains/whatever. Clean slate! Let's go!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think the rules that people seem to agree on universally(generally don't kill, or at least not indiscriminately; help at least some of the younger weak live) have evolved as survival mechanisms.

I don't think there are a ton of "rules" that people generally agree on. They seem to quibble about the details. Can you think of other examples?

Yes people have come up with moral systems based on self interest. And generally people agree that morality helps people survive. If in a society there are rules against killing and stealing etc. then the society will be stronger because there will not be internal conflict. But as far as morality is concerned you run into what I like to call the Nietchza problem. If one can see that the morality is there purely to help the society to survive, the smart rational player would want to live in a moral society, but not be moral themselves but make the rest of society think they are moral (become a superman beyond burgeous morality). You want to live in a moral society because then your neighbords won't steal your stuff or kill you. However, if you live in such a society, if you can get away with it, you should steal your neighbors stuff because that will benefit you. As long as your neighbors don't know that you are doing it, then you should do it. If you can cheat on your taxes and get away with it you should because it is in your self interest. In a moral code that is purely based on self interest and practicality how can argue that someone should not steal from their neighbor if they can get away with it?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes people have come up with moral systems based on self interest. And generally people agree that morality helps people survive. If in a society there are rules against killing and stealing etc. then the society will be stronger because there will not be internal conflict. But as far as morality is concerned you run into what I like to call the Nietchza problem. If one can see that the morality is there purely to help the society to survive, the smart rational player would want to live in a moral society, but not be moral themselves but make the rest of society think they are moral (become a superman beyond burgeous morality). You want to live in a moral society because then your neighbords won't steal your stuff or kill you. However, if you live in such a society, if you can get away with it, you should steal your neighbors stuff because that will benefit you. As long as your neighbors don't know that you are doing it, then you should do it. If you can cheat on your taxes and get away with it you should because it is in your self interest. In a moral code that is purely based on self interest and practicality how can argue that someone should not steal from their neighbor if they can get away with it?

Like Einstine said, it's all relative.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
In a moral code that is purely based on self interest and practicality how can argue that someone should not steal from their neighbor if they can get away with it?

How does deriving that code from a god change anything you've said? If god says "be good" there's still an incentive for someone to cheat. Maybe they don't care about going to hell. Or maybe hell doesn't exist.

If what you're saying is there are no adequate non-eternal enforcement mechanisms, then you're arguing an entirely different proposition.

I just don't see what religion necessarily adds, except for a false definiteness that can't be countered by logic. It's like the abortion debate: "the law should be this way because I believe it should be."

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes people have come up with moral systems based on self interest. And generally people agree that morality helps people survive. If in a society there are rules against killing and stealing etc. then the society will be stronger because there will not be internal conflict. But as far as morality is concerned you run into what I like to call the Nietchza problem. If one can see that the morality is there purely to help the society to survive, the smart rational player would want to live in a moral society, but not be moral themselves but make the rest of society think they are moral (become a superman beyond burgeous morality). You want to live in a moral society because then your neighbords won't steal your stuff or kill you. However, if you live in such a society, if you can get away with it, you should steal your neighbors stuff because that will benefit you. As long as your neighbors don't know that you are doing it, then you should do it. If you can cheat on your taxes and get away with it you should because it is in your self interest. In a moral code that is purely based on self interest and practicality how can argue that someone should not steal from their neighbor if they can get away with it?

I think it is hardwired into us to a degree, not to do the things that are bad for society as a whole. And the ability to comprehend (or inability to completely ignore/forget) the whole kinda Kantian* "if everyone did it, my life would suck, so I shouldn't do it" thing is also hardwired in, to a degree. Why do pack animals cooperate?

*oooh, check it out, I put in a PHILOSOPHER name, I am soooo fucking cool

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Whoa. For a RINO, spanky, you're getting all Dobson on us today.


Stop it, and go get a philosophy book. This stuff makes baby Aristotle cry.

As far as I am concerend philosophy is the basis of politics. I find the disucssion interesting. If you don't want to read my posts, simply ignore them, or you could go to the fashion board and discuss American Idol and breast implants.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
As far as I am concerend philosophy is the basis of politics. I find the disucssion interesting. If you don't want to read my posts, simply ignore them, or you could go to the fashion board and discuss American Idol and breast implants.

We are talking about fucking now.