Chefelf.com Night Life: The human condition. - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

The human condition.

#16 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 22 April 2008 - 02:18 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Apr 22 2008, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anyway, I still don't entirely understand the question that started this thread. I think ethics don't restrict the development of society; I think they're necessary for it. Without ethics we might all be brutes. And with neverending conflict, I doubt we'd develop anything.


I wanted to know if people thought that an individual who is not constraint by ethics can prosper within a society which relies on it. If that individual can advance that society with his ideals. And if advancing a society means doing away with ethics.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#17 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:19 PM

Charles Manson did ok. I don't think he advanced society. I think society has advanced in lots of ways without sacrificing ethics. I am trying to think of an example where a completely unethical person advanced society in any way.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#18 User is offline   BigStupidDogFacedArse Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 11-January 08
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 22 April 2008 - 05:28 PM

QUOTE
Not sure either. A country's refusal to use torture would be a strong international message of propaganda, and it might lead to less torture internationally. Use of torture may earn information of short-term value, but it would also encourage enemies to use torture. The knowledge that prisoners are treated with basic decency was a key factor in mass surrendering in the first Gulf War (as well as the amicable final several months of WWII, in the European theatre) knowing that capture means waterboarding, racist humiliation and threats to one's genital area will make soldiers more likely to consider death preferable (and that's the situation we have today). So, ethical treatment of prisoners is good strategy in warfare. In order to ensure that prisoners will not be treated ethically, all a leader need to do is to take psychotics who have never seen a day of battle and put them in charge of prisoner care.


I wouldn't endorse torture when dealing with a civilized enemy. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they're rational people. Saddam’s rag tag army, as it was after the Iranian war, probably knew they were licked and surrendered with smiles. I guess the US is not as barbaric as some might make out. However, I'd say our international standard for ethical treatment of captives flat lines when dealing with the 'god is great' chanting ghouls of Al Qaeda. I don't believe they'd appreciate our chivalry. They may take advantage of it when they need it, but I doubt they'd return the favor. We are a nation of faggots and atheists, according to them, and need to be destroyed. I don’t' need to listen to masochists who blame terrorism on the US, all I need do is read the transcripts and hear the audio clips of these people call it like they see it.

But if you're right about our goodness rubbing off on them, then why haven't they traded in their head lopping scimitars and civilian/journalist captives in for a water hose and box spring. Surely, they remember the kindness we espoused during the gulf war as our armies fed and took care of their men.

Gross illustrations and actual photos in this link. Not for viewing pleasure mind you, it's not a sicko site.

http://www.thesmokin...72torture1.html

http://www.spiegel.d...,489898,00.html

If they're willing to use torture on their own, they're sure as hell use it on us. They use it on fellow muslims who believe a slightly different teaching of Islam.

QUOTE
I wanted to know if people thought that an individual who is not constraint by ethics can prosper within a society which relies on it. If that individual can advance that society with his ideals. And if advancing a society means doing away with ethics.


Are you pondering the stem cell or abortion debate? Like, what would happen if there was a split in ethics in a country?

Individuals can advance society while being unethical Hitler brought Germany out of a third world debt but, as far as ethics go, well you know, his name is a byword for evil and all that stuff. But ultimately it was also his demise. He brought down Germany and destroyed the rest of Europe for decades to come.

This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 22 April 2008 - 05:40 PM

0

#19 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 22 April 2008 - 09:33 PM

QUOTE (BigStupidDogFacedArse @ Apr 22 2008, 05:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wouldn't endorse torture when dealing with a civilized enemy. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they're rational people. Saddam’s rag tag army, as it was after the Iranian war, probably knew they were licked and surrendered with smiles. I guess the US is not as barbaric as some might make out. However, I'd say our international standard for ethical treatment of captives flat lines when dealing with the 'god is great' chanting ghouls of Al Qaeda. I don't believe they'd appreciate our chivalry. They may take advantage of it when they need it, but I doubt they'd return the favor. We are a nation of faggots and atheists, according to them, and need to be destroyed. I don’t' need to listen to masochists who blame terrorism on the US, all I need do is read the transcripts and hear the audio clips of these people call it like they see it.

So I'm hearing about some horrible and often ridiculous things going on in US prison camps. As an average soldier, I'm like "Oh come on. That's ridiculous." Then I see photos on international news stations that back up the stories I've heard, and then I see the US President endorsing torture for the greater good. NOW I believe everything the demagogues tell me about the horrors of US foreign policy. I see US soldiers burning copies of the Koran in front of military prisoners, and I am instantly convinced that despite commercial interests, it's a holy war after all. The US is interested only in destroying my religious freedom.

Well, abroad at least. Folks in the Middle East are well aware of religious freedom in the West. It's US foreign policy that riles them up. The mythology that they're out to get us and all of our freedoms is ridiculous. And on their end, the idea that the US is aiding the Jews in eradicating their religion is equally ridiculous. But that's the propaganda behind the economic war that is going on. And torture helps sell the other side's propaganda. So it's counterproductive. Saying "but they're uncivilised" is mere justification.

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#20 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 April 2008 - 03:34 AM

QUOTE
if an individual who is not constrained by ethics can prosper within a society which relies on it.

If that individual can advance that society with his ideals.

And if advancing a society means doing away with ethics.


Everyone must be constrained by ethics. To have no ethics is to lack boundaries and therefore lack form. The formless void of madness. I must thusly assume that you mean an individual not constrained by society's ethics. Those who are not constrained by society's standards are those with the intellect to form their own ideals. But these people can still be worthless without action and will power. Those individuals who lack the will to enforce their ideals upon society can prosper within it. Those with such drive will either be victorious or be destroyed.

An individual with the will to enforce his ideals upon society will almost certainly advance that society. Even if it recedes in some areas, advancements will be made in others and a new age will be forged.

Advancing a society can be done without enforcing ones ideals on the people, but creating a new age all together, a revolution, requires the participation of the people. That's how I see it.

QUOTE
I wouldn't endorse torture when dealing with a civilized enemy.


Ah yes. We're civilized because we put on uniforms and shed false tears when we carpet bomb an Afghan village. To hell with civilized ideas of warfare which is in itself uncivilized. To declare that our civilized idea of war gives us the right to commit attrocities and torture people shows a level of self deception that is incredible. The Resistance fighters are at least honest about what they do.

QUOTE
But if you're right about our goodness rubbing off on them, then why haven't they traded in their head lopping scimitars and civilian/journalist captives in for a water hose and box spring. Surely, they remember the kindness we espoused during the gulf war


Because destroying a captured enemy is sometimes necessary to prevent valuable intelligence falling into the hands of his superiors. Al Qaida, not having a liberated zone in truth, is unable to take prisoners of war in a conventional sense. Even so, I would rather be taken alive by them and given a dignified death than to languish in some secred US prison. As for our kindness during the gulf war 1, that war ended quickly because Iraq's objectives were wrong, and the people had already lost their heart for war through years of conflict with Iran. This time many have no choice but to fight. The first gulf war cannot at all be compared to the current aggression.

QUOTE
They may take advantage of it when they need it, but I doubt they'd return the favor. We are a nation of faggots and atheists, according to them, and need to be destroyed. I don’t' need to listen to masochists who blame terrorism on the US, all I need do is read the transcripts and hear the audio clips of these people call it like they see it.


We are a nation of imperialists and butchers according to them. If they were after gays and the irreligious they would hit Denmark or Finland or any other country more progressive on gay rights than us.

If you want to read the words of a terrorist you'll have no problem there. It's been clearly stated that people are either with Bush or with the terrorists, and I've stated just as clearly which side of that dichotomy I adhere to. American support for Israel and the constant interference in the Arab world is the reason for terrorism, and its not all US military operations. Any time someone is killed or tortured by a number of oppressive Arab governments its a fair bet that the US funds and condones the actions.

Finally to the question of moral relativism.

I despise the idea of denying good and evil. An idea of good and evil is necessary for a society to define itself. And it is necessary for a society to change. We have to continually define what we view as good and evil so that we can continue to evolve towards a more perfect ethical state. A society that does not believe in evil is incapable of successfully making war and will crumble.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 23 April 2008 - 03:43 AM

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#21 User is offline   BigStupidDogFacedArse Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 11-January 08
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 25 April 2008 - 04:59 PM

So, according to Civilian no.2 and Hofman, the Islamic world is fighting the US over econmics and jihad is merely a means to rally the masses to fight a secular battle. In short, they're being tricked into thinking it's a holy war but it's actually not?
0

#22 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 April 2008 - 10:38 PM

Wow. I've used fishing bait that did less squirming than this. You concede that there is, maybe, something motivating Islamic resistance besides "omg gays are teh suxxor" and then you slam them for, supposedly, lying to their soldiers about what they're fighting for?

The problem here is that, according to the Quran, this is a holy war. When someone comes onto Muslim land and tries to fuck them up, for whatever reason, it's a holy war. The reason for this is to condone them when they defend themselves or strike back against aggressors. So they are not untruthful in calling this, by their doctrine, a holy war. All that means is that Allah wont cast them down to the lake of fire if they kill people in this particular conflict. It doesnt mean that the BASIS for the war is at all religious. If a bee comes and stings you, its fair to say that that bee maybe stung you because its religion tells it to. But if you hit a bee hive with a ball bat and then get stung, you cant claim that the bee stung you because it hates your freedom or your fags.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#23 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 26 April 2008 - 11:03 AM

Are ethics born from religion/superstition? If this is correct and if society does depend on ethnics as some of you claim then does that mean that without a fear in a higher power would society suffer to a large extent?
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#24 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 April 2008 - 11:21 AM

Ethics were born from the common understanding that when large groups of people do whatever the fuck they want without considering how their actions effect others, things get ugly, and some code of conduct is required in order to remain peaceful and not inflict harm upon others. Religion was formed around that as an excuse to keep people in line while trying to explain the previously unexplainable. It's laughable to think that the wrath of some god keeps "society" (I assume you mean Western culture, even though you're from Australia and that's not officially in the "West") in line.

Alternatively; I don't know. You tell me. Maybe if you read the thread you'd find your answer. I think we've covered this. Guiding questions are nice, but you need to look a little more like you're participating, methinks.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#25 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 April 2008 - 12:40 PM

Ritualized ethics are, but some ethics are just hardwired into most of us. I don't see how it can even be argued that humanity's entire ethical code is based on superstition, and it's kind of silly that many of the questions in this topic seem to appear to be leading against any ethical code whatever. An amoral society will surely fall as opposed to an anarcho syndicalist or atheistic one, where there is room to debate the outcome of such an occurence.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#26 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 26 April 2008 - 01:30 PM

QUOTE (Slade @ Apr 27 2008, 02:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Religion was formed around that as an excuse to keep people in line while trying to explain the previously unexplainable.


Isn't that what ethics are? To keep people under control?

QUOTE (Slade @ Apr 27 2008, 02:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's laughable to think that the wrath of some god keeps "society" (I assume you mean Western culture, even though you're from Australia and that's not officially in the "West") in line.


Why must a person follow ethics? It is because they fear being punished by the authorities or by a higher power? Or is it because they believe that if they do not follow certain written and unwritten laws then chaos will ensure?

QUOTE (Slade @ Apr 27 2008, 02:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Alternatively; I don't know. You tell me. Maybe if you read the thread you'd find your answer. I think we've covered this. Guiding questions are nice, but you need to look a little more like you're participating, methinks.


If you insist. I believe that the majority of people follow laws which have evolved from religious teachings because they fear punishment in this life or the next.

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Apr 27 2008, 03:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't see how it can even be argued that humanity's entire ethical code is based on superstition, and it's kind of silly that many of the questions in this topic seem to appear to be leading against any ethical code whatever.


That was not my intention.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#27 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 26 April 2008 - 05:54 PM

The Crusades were a secular war fought by soldiers who thought they were fighting a holy war. So yes, it's possible to be fighting a "Holy War" under false pretences. Since I don't believe in God, then my definition of Holy War implies that all holy war pretences are false. That is, God never asks folks to go to war. But by a tiny subdefinition of holy wars, a war begun by a religious authority solely for the purpose of furthering religion would count. But that's not what this is. This is an aggressor nation trying to take over an area, establish a friendly government, and then control the energy reserves. The aggressor nation has sold to its population the idea that two things may happen if the war doesn't happen, one that oil prices will go up, and the the other that villains from other lands will murder them with explosives. On the other side, religious folks as well as power-seeking warlords are selling to people the idea that if they don't resist the occupation, Americans will establish a puppet government and arrest and kill whoever disagrees with them. It's not hard to sell a war effort to men with criminal backgrounds or who have seen the effects of Western violence. These two categories contain a lot of people in the occupied territory.

The resistance fighters and the suicide bombers do not believe that Americans will try to control their religion or to destroy their way of life. You hear that nonsense propaganda in the West, from dumbass retail clerks and pump jockeys, "If we don't kill 'em all, we'll all be speaking Iraqi in a year." But over there, they are well aware of Western religious freedoms. They don't look to the West as a place where Islam is not allowed to be, and they don't worry that Christians are coming to crucify and convert them. There was an expensive and failed propaganda campaign funded by the US government whose purpose was to sell that very idea. Turns out the people targeted by the campaign said "well duh," and complained, surprisingly, that it was US aggression that bothered them and not the idea that there might be Christians and fags in America restricting a Muslim's right to worship. This failed campaign is pretty well documented in a lot of places. So no, it's not a Holy War for them, even if it may be for some of the Christian soldiers who burn copies of the Koran in front of political prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

As to the question of whether ethics are there to control people, I'm not sure I understand it. For instance, I keep promises I make to people. The promise is a rule created by myself, and the constraint of keeping my word is self-serving. First, folks are more likely to make deals with me in future, knowing that I keep my promises, and second, I don't like feeling or looking like a liar. The idea that ethics are created by some unseen or government or religious force to control me doesn't sit with my idea of a code of ethics. I am not "controlled" by a code of ethics, and I don't think that's the value of ethics. I don't think people are afraid of punishment when they return someone's lost wallet or cell phone; they're just being nice. Ethics are useful in allowing societies to grow and in fostering communication. I don't exactly understand the implied notion that they are a part of some plan enacted by God or the Man.

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#28 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 April 2008 - 12:31 AM

QUOTE
Isn't that what ethics are? To keep people under control?


No.

QUOTE
It is because they fear being punished by the authorities or by a higher power? Or is it because they believe that if they do not follow certain written and unwritten laws then chaos will ensure?
'

You shouldnt phrase statements as questions. Also, No and no. Also, I'm J M Hoffman and when I don't follow unwritten laws and chaos erupts, I always drink Ensure.



More specificly, people follow ethical codes because they have those codes in their hearts. Our ethical codes are passed down by our parents and can be altered only by personal experience, not by someone telling us that such and such is right or wrong. They're far more organic and less artificial than you make them.

QUOTE
If you insist. I believe that the majority of people follow laws which have evolved from religious teachings because they fear punishment in this life or the next.


Which religion? And where did the laws come from then? You must be advocating that, with each religion, their respective god or gods popped by and gave us an ethical code. Why then is it that the laws of all religions conform to a society's specific ideals and that the gods often represent those ideals? Also, why have all world religions basically had the same ethical code?


Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#29 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 27 April 2008 - 06:20 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Apr 27 2008, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As to the question of whether ethics are there to control people, I'm not sure I understand it. For instance, I keep promises I make to people. The promise is a rule created by myself, and the constraint of keeping my word is self-serving. First, folks are more likely to make deals with me in future, knowing that I keep my promises, and second, I don't like feeling or looking like a liar. The idea that ethics are created by some unseen or government or religious force to control me doesn't sit with my idea of a code of ethics. I am not "controlled" by a code of ethics, and I don't think that's the value of ethics. I don't think people are afraid of punishment when they return someone's lost wallet or cell phone; they're just being nice. Ethics are useful in allowing societies to grow and in fostering communication.


Have you never asked yourself why you would return a wallet? Or what it is to be or nice? If you feel good by returning the wallet then why do you feel good? Were you not programmed to be nice by the various people in your early life?

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Apr 27 2008, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't exactly understand the implied notion that they are a part of some plan enacted by God or the Man.


I never implied that.

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Apr 27 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
More specificly, people follow ethical codes because they have those codes in their hearts. Our ethical codes are passed down by our parents and can be altered only by personal experience, not by someone telling us that such and such is right or wrong. They're far more organic and less artificial than you make them.


So then I am brought back to my original question: do these codes restrict the ability of a single human? If society are advanced by individuals then do ethics impair the ability of individuals to advance a society?

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Apr 27 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Which religion? And where did the laws come from then? You must be advocating that, with each religion, their respective god or gods popped by and gave us an ethical code. Why then is it that the laws of all religions conform to a society's specific ideals and that the gods often represent those ideals?


Because that society evolved from that religion or that religion heavily influenced that society later in that society’s development.

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Apr 27 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Also, why have all world religions basically had the same ethical code?


They don't. If you compare monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam you will find it has little in common with polytheistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Shinto. Then there are philosophical religions like Taoism and Confucianism which are also dissimilar to those stated.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 27 April 2008 - 06:30 AM

"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#30 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 27 April 2008 - 03:34 PM

QUOTE
Deucaon: Have you never asked yourself why you would return a wallet? Or what it is to be or nice? If you feel good by returning the wallet then why do you feel good? Were you not programmed to be nice by the various people in your early life?

Was I programmed? Perhaps. People have been good to me in my life. I have not been robbed, attacked, strangers give me reliable directions, a complete stranger once game me a jack when my tire was flat and I had a spare but no jack (this was my first car, in high school, and I wasn't ready for things like flat tires). I have been picked up by a stranger and given a ride not entirely out of their way more than once in my life, and I pick up hitchhikers all the time. I hold doors open for people approaching them laden down or pushing strollers; I loan money to my friends without asking when it will be returned; etc etc. Maybe the way that people behave towards one another builds ethics. Maybe conforming to a socially accepted ethical code convinces others to do the same. Maybe that worked on me, but not in the way that you keep implying. I _MAY_ be a nice guy because I have encountered and dealt with nice guys all my life. I am _NOT_ a nice guy because someone sat me down and told me that nice guys behave thus and so and so I better do that too if I know what's good for me.

Certainly, I can't imagine how dropping an ethical code would improve me as a person, reliably earn me more money (you can't just wander around hoping to find lost wallets when going to work will earn you $350 a day). And I can't even fantasize a worl where dropping all ethics would make society grow into something better.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Civ#2: I don't exactly understand the implied notion that they are a part of some plan enacted by God or the Man.
QUOTE
Deucaon: I never implied that.

QUOTE
Deucaon: I believe that the majority of people follow laws which have evolved from religious teachings because they fear punishment in this life or the next.

Oh. My mistake then.

QUOTE
Deucaon: So then I am brought back to my original question: do these codes restrict the ability of a single human? If society are advanced by individuals then do ethics impair the ability of individuals to advance a society?

Getting back to your original question, no. Folks like Ayn Rand believe that society was advanced by individuals, but that doesn't make it so. Society is advanced by group actions. Sometimes individuals, acting completely alone and with no input from anyone else, may come up with something that no other individual anywhere on the Earth could ever have come up with at that time. I think this is what happened with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which I will admit advanced physics a hell of a lot. But that's the exception. The majority of inventions were being worked on simultaneously by people all over the place, and just about every social development is a group effort.

Getting back further to your indvidual questions, I am not sure what sort of social advances you expect to be made by wallet-stealing, murdering thieves who refuse to act according to social norms and who likely make no friends. Einstein, above, came up with his Theory of General Relativity while working a 9-5 job and paying rent. He was also a good atheist with a general metaphorical belief in God (that added for Madame Corvax). Had Einstein robbed the safe at the patent office where he worked, maybe he'd have been fired and wouldn't have had the opportunity to work on his calculations. I think ethics empower individuals to be a part of social growth; they don't constrain them.

In other news, I have thought of a way that an unethical individual in the circimstances above might behave in an unethical though technically legal manner and in behaving unethically he might advance the nothion he was working on, thereby arguably advancing society. I'm not going to bother sharing it, however, because it's actually really complicated and is a form of community effort, so it gets all muddy and I don't need another tangent.

QUOTE
Deucaon: If you compare monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam you will find it has little in common with polytheistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Shinto. Then there are philosophical religions like Taoism and Confucianism which are also dissimilar to those stated.

To a religious person, religions may seem drastically different from one another, but to an atheist they don't. You'll find that all those groups think murder is bad, warfare for profit is bad, stealing is bad, adultery is bad, and living in harmonious community with others is good. Most have some form of ritual, and while the rituals differ from group to group they generally conform to normal social ethics (ie, no ritual sacrifices unless you're in a society that likes ritual sacrifice). So one group eats pork and another doesn't, one has one day of Christmas, while another has eight craaaazy nights! but you have to concede the obvious point that Jm was making: religions are created by society, not the other way around, and the ethics of society inform the ethics of the religion. Since there are no gods, the gods we invent will be like people and they will have such traits as people have. They will also demand that people behave in a manner conforming to society's accepted ethics. Which is convenient, since those are the ethics of the society even without the religion. When the society changes, then the religions either change to keep up, or they fall out of favour. Religion is a part of society, not the origin of it (the origin of society is farming, and consequently beer). So too ethics: they are a part of society, not the origin of it.

Here's one: Do you think an Individual, but refusing to be a part of society's Code of Ethics, could change society's Code of Ethics? Can you think of any Individual who has ever done that? Hint: DON'T say "Jesus."

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size