The Inherent Contradiction Of Morality And Ethics

There are a variety of non-consensual social behaviors tolerated in society. Why is that?

Why are some outlawed where others are socially tolerated?

Why the picking and choosing of what get's tolerated in contrast to that which doesn't?

Aren't all forms of inequality or non-consensual behaviors to the moral and ethical philosopher considered immoral?

Why the allowance and tolerance of what is seen generally as immoral?

Explain this intricate contradiction of virtually every society, culture, and civilization.

With this allowance and tolerance of certain contradictions, can we really expect morality or ethics to survive as viable explanations of anything overtime?

If we acknowledge that society and culture indeed does tolerate a variety of nonconsensual behaviors, can we not describe morality or ethics as merely absurd displays that mean nothing at all?

You just really got to like the morality and ethics of human cultural societies.

(Specifically the lack of where there supposedly exists some.)

Apparently morality and ethics only concerns themselves with the perceivement of those who are in control of societies because nobody dare questions what the slaves think are "right" or "wrong" when it concerns their own existence. Why would they? They are simply just slaves afterall.

This is the chimaira that no foolish ethical or moral philosopher can escape from no matter how hard they try and the one in which the nihilist laughs behind.

On the one hand the moral or ethical politician will speak of the collective greater "good" yet in the otherhand there exists a whip and gun to which he herds the endless millions of slaves behind into social obedience. The moralists and ethicists delude themselves but the nihilist stands in the background seeing all of reality for what it really is beyond the absurd haze of ideals.

First: since when does an ethic necessitate a consistent, universal equality? Second: why such an insistence that morality either benefit everyone equally, or be banished from thought entirely? In one breath you both assert your superiority and plea for a level playing field. You obviously spend a lot of time thinking about society; perhaps its time you turn your gaze inwards.

Without-Music you must understand that underlying TheJokers anger and ethical nature beats the heart of a socialist.

But is he willing to admit that? If so, his claims to superiority, to standing above the herd, to wanting to unleash his wrath upon the rest of mankind, to valuing nothing but chaos, to gagging at the sight of altruism, all these claims wholly contradict themselves.

He desires to destroy to destroy it all so that what rises from the ashes is more kind to him.
He does not value chaos. He despises this type of order and dreams of chaos as a cleansing mechanism.

No sane man values chaos.
Chaos is darkness, ignorance, madness, what is not understood and so what is not controllable.

Says the one that misunderstands chaos.

Why is it something so foreign?

Oh my dear...you are so sad.

Chaos is simply that which is not known or is imperceptible.
The mind cannot make sense of it or find patterns in it.
It interprets it as blackness.

Chaos, by definition, is a state of unpredictability.

When you worship chaos you worship your own ignorance.
You surrender to the turmoil.

Σατυρ wrote:

When you worship chaos you worship your own ignorance.
You surrender to the turmoil.

And it is by this understanding that I label Joker a disciple of chaos. If not his own ignorance, then what does he worship?

You claim that his desire to watch it all burn is fueled by a hope that what will rise in the wake of such a destruction will be more kind to him -- he is no socialist; his socialism is at odds with the rest of his ideological commitments. In short: ignorance.

Σατυρ wrote:

Chaos is simply that which is not known or is imperceptible.

And is it really?

Quote :

The mind cannot make sense of it or find patterns in it.

And maybe some minds can...

What you consider chaos, I most likely consider fun...

without-music wrote:

First: since when does an ethic necessitate a consistent, universal equality? Second: why such an insistence that morality either benefit everyone equally, or be banished from thought entirely? In one breath you both assert your superiority and plea for a level playing field. You obviously spend a lot of time thinking about society; perhaps its time you turn your gaze inwards.

Quote :

First: since when does an ethic necessitate a consistent, universal equality?

The origins of ethics is morality. If there was no morality there would be no reason to be ethical.

Without the moral notion of equality there would be only constant inequality thus reducing ethics along with morals to nothing at all.

Quote :

Second: why such an insistence that morality either benefit everyone equally, or be banished from thought entirely?

If we agree that morality or ethics doesn't benefit everybody equally then we can say that both ideologies don't deserve everybody's adherence or obedience to either thus invalidating the two even further.

Quote :

In one breath you both assert your superiority

Where have I?

Quote :

and plea for a level playing field.

I don't seek a level playing field. I seek to destroy it.

Quote :

You obviously spend a lot of time thinking about society;

So, what?

Quote :

perhaps its time you turn your gaze inwards.

I have. What are you implying?

Quote :

But is he willing to admit that?

Admit what?

Quote :

If so, his claims to superiority,

I haven't really claimed anything.

Quote :

to standing above the herd, to wanting to unleash his wrath upon the rest of mankind,

Maybe so but in no way did I say I was the most superior human being.

I'm not that naive.

Quote :

to valuing nothing but chaos, to gagging at the sight of altruism, all these claims wholly contradict themselves.

How so?

Quote :

Satyr:


Without-Music you must understand that underlying TheJokers anger and ethical nature beats the heart of a socialist.

Define even further that sentence indepth.

Quote :

He desires to destroy to destroy it all so that what rises from the ashes is more kind to him.

I seek to create and master my own order or existence instead of submitting to another's.

Quote :

He does not value chaos.

Yes I do. Only through chaos does the individual truely find genuine independence unadulterated by others.

The natural course of nature is one of chaos which is why the more human beings try to disrupt it that they eventually enslave or chain themselves.

Quote :

He despises this type of order and dreams of chaos as a cleansing mechanism.

It is a cleansing mechanism.

Nature cleanses man's stupidity and wipes the slate clean.

Quote :

No sane man values chaos.

I'm surprised you are using that word.

Who is sane?

Quote :

Chaos is darkness, ignorance, madness, what is not understood and so what is not controllable.

I seek to disrupt control.

I seek to dance with madness. You should try it sometime.

This correspondence is closed; I see absolutely no value in engaging you, Joker. Know Thyself, indeed.

without-music wrote:

This correspondence is closed; I see absolutely no value in engaging you, Joker. Know Thyself, indeed.

What the hell are you talking about, you giant whiny douche?

You look like a person running out of the room with their tail tied between their legs.

Are you scared? Do you find yourself unable to hold down a conversation and a debate?

Fuck it. Be off with you then. I really don't care you silly boy.