Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Quotes on morality from someone in New Orleans just don't compute, what with that whole Mardi Gras thing, not to mention jazz lyrics, etc. (but I just love "You can leave your hat on..." ooh baby).

Hank somehow knew that I'm taking off for New Orleans in about five hours and was trying to tell me, in his own special way, to be good.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Nope. I mean thought. We don't eat just because there is food in front of us. We actually conceptualize hunger and sateity. Similarly, we don't fuck because we smell the hormones emitted by a woman prior to menstruation. We fuck because it feels good and we like it. Humans don't operate on instinct, except for the most basic autonomic functions, such as breathing and blinking. That's what separates us from the animals. I don't think that natural selection or instinct have anything to do with decision-making processes, such as deciding to act in a moral or immoral fashion.

OK - I am using terms I don't quite understand the definition of. It may not be instinctual, but I definitely think our social behaivor has been passed down through generation to generation. Human social behavior is a trait that helps us survive. I think certain types of moral thinking have been passed down because that type of moral thinking helps us form societies. So in orther words, parts of moral thinking are a mutation that has been passed down because it helps us perpetuate our genetic code. However, as you guys are probably sick of hearing me saying, I don't think this mutation is the entire foundation of our moral inclinations.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This has certainly become apparent.

Are you implying that I am repeating myself Ad Nauseum. That my have something to do with the fact that Hank has hired some of his Detroit underground pals to break my fingers.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Cites, please.

Those were just my thoughts off the top of my head- I can't prove any of it per se.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky I think certain types of moral thinking have been passed down because that type of moral thinking helps us form societies. So in orther words, parts of moral thinking are a mutation that has been passed down because it helps us perpetuate our genetic code.

Parts of moral thinking, like the instinct for religion?

Are you implying that I am repeating myself Ad Nauseum.

Some of us keep trying to reason with you, to little avail.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Parts of moral thinking, like the instinct for religion?

Aboslutely. You have seen those recent studies that show man has a religous Gene. I think that makes perfect sense because societies that have religion are much more cohesive and survive better than those that don't. A theocracy seems to keep the people in line better because eternal hell and damnation are a strong incentive.

But as I stated before, genetic mutations can't explain the convergence of morality in this world.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Some of us keep trying to reason with you, to little avail.

Just out of curiousity which points am I wrong on:

1) Reason and logic in themselves cannot be a basis for a moral code

2) Morality in the world is converging

3) (a)It is hard to tell a foreign leader to adopt your way of moral thinking if you are a moral relativist.

(b) it is hard to critisize slavery in other countrys if you are a moral relativist.

4) A moral code based on pure selfishness is insufficient to justify things like universal human rights.

5) A moral code based on human mutation and genetic surival is not sufficient to justify universal human rights.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you are killing me here. Ty start a thread for morality and let them go at it.

Spanky, Hank is the product of divorce. He doesn't deal well when the adults bicker. Please stop. Remember the children.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter


Spanky, Hank is the product of divorce. He doesn't deal well when the adults bicker. Please stop. Remember the children.

Now that he's grown up, I would think he would like the public make-up sex. At least, if it's with Pretty Lady and Spanky's aesthetically pleasing.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Now that he's grown up, I would think he would like the public make-up sex. At least, if it's with Pretty Lady and Spanky's aesthetically pleasing.

I'm pretty sure that make-up sex is off topic for this board. Especially if Hank's involved.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm pretty sure that make-up sex is off topic for this board. Especially if Hank's involved.

I think we can work public make-up sex into this whole morality thing pretty easily.

[ltl/fb]

Is this supposedly reputable? Because an opinion column in it has a massive misstatement in it that partially undermines the argument it's trying to make. I know that opinion pieces are the product of the author, etc., but it seems like normally they get fact-checked at least.

The misstatement is along the lines of "And this apple is the same thing as an orange, so you can easily remove the peel with just your fingers. Influential company has chosen to have an apple, showing just how much corporate America prefers fruits with easily removeable peels." Only, an apple isn't an orange, and you can't remove the peel of the apple with your fingers.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you are killing me here. Ty start a thread for morality and let them go at it.

This is the morality thread.

Feel free to post on "Gadgets" or on the Detroit Board.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky


Just out of curiousity which points am I wrong on:

1) Reason and logic in themselves cannot be a basis for a moral code

2) Morality in the world is converging

3) (a)It is hard to tell a foreign leader to adopt your way of moral thinking if you are a moral relativist.

(b) it is hard to critisize slavery in other countrys if you are a moral relativist.

4) A moral code based on pure selfishness is insufficient to justify things like universal human rights.

5) A moral code based on human mutation and genetic surival is not sufficient to justify universal human rights.

1. Wrong. Reason and logic are themselves forms of faith. Also, what the hell does "basis" mean; a moral code is itself something, and damn well better incorporate elements of both logic and faith to work; which is the basis if both are sine qua nons?

2. Dissent. There are moral codes that periodically converge and separate. Within the US, I believe we have a less unified moral code that 50 years ago, even if worldwide there can be a more intelligent conversation among Catholics and Buddhists today than 50 years ago.

3. Completely and totally wrong. Seeing morality as bound to time and circumstances does not mean that all is moral; while it is always fun to win arguments by setting up straw men, oversimplifying the position of those who believe morality must be motivated from the inside rather than imposed will only win you points among simpletons (Hi, Hank!). Please re-read the debate between Ivan and Father Zosima.

4. OK, you get one. Or is it just that you've chosen to prove a tautology?

5. Do not underestimate the creativity of the human species.

(Yea! The reinforcements have arrived! We can keep this debate going through the weekend!)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
1. Wrong. Reason and logic are themselves forms of faith. Also, what the hell does "basis" mean; a moral code is itself something, and damn well better incorporate elements of both logic and faith to work; which is the basis if both are sine qua nons?

Where did faith come from. I did not mention faith in my sentence. IS there any logic to the Ten Commandments or are they just commandments? If the basis of morality is selfishness you can make arguments. Like - It is wrong till kill innocent people, because if you do somday somebody might kill you. So it is important to set up a rule in society against killing innocent people for your own protection. But if the basis of morality is not selfishness then what is the basis? Why is killinig people wrong - if you can refer to some code that say it is then you are OK - but with out a basis you are lost. Unless you can give me some rational reason why killing is wrong that does not include selfishness. Like I said before, the terms morality, right and wrong don't mean anything unless there is a code agreed upon by the person using the term and the person listening to the term.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
2. Dissent. There are moral codes that periodically converge and separate. Within the US, I believe we have a less unified moral code that 50 years ago, even if worldwide there can be a more intelligent conversation among Catholics and Buddhists today than 50 years ago.

There are way to many variable to agree on this. But I would point out that slavery used to be accepted all over teh world. Now it is very rare. Democracy was not considered a preferable form of government. Now most governments are democratic, and if they are not, they try and claim to be. It seems to me that general moral principles are starting to be accepted by the whole world.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 3. Completely and totally wrong. Seeing morality as bound to time and circumstances does not mean that all is moral; while it is always fun to win arguments by setting up straw men, oversimplifying the position of those who believe morality must be motivated from the inside rather than imposed will only win you points among simpletons (Hi, Hank!). Please re-read the debate between Ivan and Father Zosima.

I dont' understand this. When did anyone say that if morality is bound to time and circumstance means that all is moral? What does that even mean?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 4. OK, you get one. Or is it just that you've chosen to prove a tautology?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 5. Do not underestimate the creativity of the human species.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy


4. OK, you get one. Or is it just that you've chosen to prove a tautology?

This is what I still don't get: The dilemma posed is a) divine morality b) self-interest "morality"

there's something in between the two, which spanky seems not to have acknowledged the existence of, which is a morality based on a recognition that pure self-interest is mutually destructive, and that placing a collective interest above that self-interest can be in the interest of all.

So far as I can tell, Spanky would say that the only way the prisoner's dilemma could be solved is if God said "thou shalt not rat out your coconspirator".