Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 351 - 362 of 6,170
Posts 351 - 362 of 6,170
Actually it'd be nice to stick em all on an island & make em bitch at each other for a change, but you'd need a really big island. 
Let's just say I think they'd be a lot better off (and so would I) if they cared about SOMETHING, be it religion, family, work, or Elvis. And if they choose not to care about anything, I'd rather have as little to do with them as possible. (This is why I sit around on my ass all day instead of hanging out with ppl. ) Maybe I'm just stuck up, but it sure beats being totally miserable.
Let's just say I think they'd be a lot better off (and so would I) if they cared about SOMETHING, be it religion, family, work, or Elvis. And if they choose not to care about anything, I'd rather have as little to do with them as possible. (This is why I sit around on my ass all day instead of hanging out with ppl. ) Maybe I'm just stuck up, but it sure beats being totally miserable. 
I just wrote a message and got kicked off the website when I tried to post it. Maybe I can reproduce it.
Kirby,
On what basis would an argument for morality be made?
Everyone else, particularly Mr. Crab,
Let me be specific: I believe there is an absolute standard of morality that is not affected by people's opinion of it. To give an example: There was a tribe in I don't remember which rain forest called the Sawi. Their highest virtue was treachery. The heroes of their legends were men who had befriended someone, got the person to totally trust them, and then killed and eaten the unsuspecting victim (they were also cannibals). I say this activity was wrong, even though their entire society approved of it.
Kirby,
On what basis would an argument for morality be made?
Everyone else, particularly Mr. Crab,
Let me be specific: I believe there is an absolute standard of morality that is not affected by people's opinion of it. To give an example: There was a tribe in I don't remember which rain forest called the Sawi. Their highest virtue was treachery. The heroes of their legends were men who had befriended someone, got the person to totally trust them, and then killed and eaten the unsuspecting victim (they were also cannibals). I say this activity was wrong, even though their entire society approved of it.
Being a legend need not imply morality. Many societies, including Western ones, tell stories about and revere tricksters. A local example would be that of Br'er Rabbit. Br'er Rabbit does have some virtues (or at least, he cleverly demonstrates he doesn't really have the bad qualities others assign to him) but the stories are loved because they show justice being done, albeit through deceit and chicanery.
Much as slaves in this country might tell folk stories about the underdog outwitting the uberman, groups of people living in very uncertain circumstances such as those in Malaysia -- or wherever the folks you have in mind (if they're real) come from -- do, might tend to laud examples of mastery, be it over environment or over people, in their folklore.
But I think it's a mistake to say that folklore embodies a society's morality, whatever it may reveal about their values. I don't believe morality is relative or subject to regional contradiction (the way values are), but neither do I think we have to look to outer space or God for it. I think to a certain extent morality is self-evident, and to the extent that it is not, it can be discovered as far as it goes by exploration. And I'm going one further by saying that if you don't take direct personal responsibility for generating your own code of morals and ethics, then you aren't really behaving morally any more than the person in the next neighborhood over who pops caps in niggas in order to reprazent. Rightness is not a receivership. It's a homestead.
Much as slaves in this country might tell folk stories about the underdog outwitting the uberman, groups of people living in very uncertain circumstances such as those in Malaysia -- or wherever the folks you have in mind (if they're real) come from -- do, might tend to laud examples of mastery, be it over environment or over people, in their folklore.
But I think it's a mistake to say that folklore embodies a society's morality, whatever it may reveal about their values. I don't believe morality is relative or subject to regional contradiction (the way values are), but neither do I think we have to look to outer space or God for it. I think to a certain extent morality is self-evident, and to the extent that it is not, it can be discovered as far as it goes by exploration. And I'm going one further by saying that if you don't take direct personal responsibility for generating your own code of morals and ethics, then you aren't really behaving morally any more than the person in the next neighborhood over who pops caps in niggas in order to reprazent. Rightness is not a receivership. It's a homestead.
In this particular society, it was more than folklore; it happened on a regular basis, albeit not every day.
But I believe moral truths are self-evident because they are true. Objectively true, as opposed to being subjective. If I generate my own code of morals and ethics, am I guaranteed to be right? What if the guy popping niggas generated his own code?
But I believe moral truths are self-evident because they are true. Objectively true, as opposed to being subjective. If I generate my own code of morals and ethics, am I guaranteed to be right? What if the guy popping niggas generated his own code?
I don't think there is a best, but it's usually pretty obvious when one way is doing something wrong. Most moralities that are generally accepted as good don't contradict others that are also accepted as such.
Right, there's a differenence between values and morals though. And values are sometimes more informed by local concerns than morals, which cannot be altered by changing circumstances.
You're not guaranteed to be right in anything you do, which is why you should try hard to do it well. If the guy popping niggas is interested in generating his own code, then he'll also consent to engage the subject with others, and he will see that his code is flawed, self-contradictory in its principles. In particular, to start with it clearly takes a psychotically narrow view of the "protected class".
But maybe we should get a little more concrete about what we mean by morality. Would you say there is a core of your moral structure and what would that be?
You're not guaranteed to be right in anything you do, which is why you should try hard to do it well. If the guy popping niggas is interested in generating his own code, then he'll also consent to engage the subject with others, and he will see that his code is flawed, self-contradictory in its principles. In particular, to start with it clearly takes a psychotically narrow view of the "protected class".
But maybe we should get a little more concrete about what we mean by morality. Would you say there is a core of your moral structure and what would that be?
Presumably because it's the same people generally accepting them. That just says that public opinion is generally consistent.
Well it doesn't help the situation that people don't realize how everything affects the big picture.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar