Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 morality

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:19 am

http://www.krimineel.com/kinderen-steken-hondje-in-brand
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DfK50IfNW_Rs
http://www.piaberrend.org/ukraine-mass-killings-of-strays-are-intensified-in-order-to-show-the-world-a-clean-country-at-eu/
http://www.navs.org.uk/campaigns/64/0/0/

i have to use examples to drive the point home or often people easily take advantage of the the fact they can wax on using disassociative logic.

does being able or having the power to do something give one the "right" to do it?

according to many who wax on about 'logic', cold/hard facts and universal laws, it is. is this real honesty though or isn't this just irresponsiblity simply because one doesn't have to?

but anyone with "real" sense and honesty knows this is wrong and not true. no one has to be honest with others or themselves. there is only so much the universe cares about but does that mean it's okay if we do the same? strict literalists would agree with this, especially those who consider themselves 'intellectuals'. they might as well be inanimate with no feelings. those who are dishonest evaluate living beings with the same detachment as with the inanimate or that power or might equals right because either the universe allows it or just because one can abuse power, so therefore it's not wrong just as one can lie (the universe doesn't stop you) doesn't mean it's right.

the belief or idea that "only" what you can get away with or what the universe allows means emphatically that makes it okay is, imo, the crux of dishonesty. the idea that one does not have to be responsible for what it's aware of just because one can get away with not doing so. the greatest test of truth is just as dependent or even more so on exactly what one does not have to be accountable for as for what it does.

these immoral bastards or those who favor moral relativism or rationalize morality to the point of nonexistence as superstition or illogical are themselves unconscious or hypocritical.

this is the same type of logic that anything that occurs is natural, so therefore okay because that is predatorial nature. taken further, that it's okay to abuse or enslave others because they have done it or nature allows it or just because one has the power to do so whether it be animals/pet, or groups of people.

i think true honesty and right is not doing just because one has the power to do so but doing what you know is best considering all factors, not dishonestly and/or hypocritically deeming anything irrevelant just because it can be overridden or ignored.

the question they never consider is that it actually might not all be okay or right, just because it is or just because the universe allows it or even engenders it.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:33 pm

What you say reminds me of those retards who say- well, my army won, therefore God approves of our deeds, or, my army lost, so God wants us to be slaves. It also reminds me of those retards who point up to the sky after winning a football game or a boxing match. The Gods almost certainly don't exist, but even if they did, I'm sure the creators of the universe would have something better to do with their time than watch fridaynight footaball (you notice it's always niggers and spics that do this, never white people). You hear that Hephaestus, the underdogs are winnning, we can't have that, we hate the underdogs, let's divinely intervene on the opposing teams behalf (red sox). Red sox fag- I'd like to thank my momma, and my daddy, and God. You fucking idiot, you didn't win because God wanted to win, you won because New York has all the money and they bought all the good players and coaches and provided them with the best training, you won because you're physically superior to the other team, you stupid fucking turd. I think these people should be rounded up and executed.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:01 pm

Morality is a feeling, that's all it is. These feelings are activated at certain times and places, like when we see a person stealing something, or mistreating somebody, or when we realize how we've mistreated others, causing them undue harm. Feelings of guilt, shame, revenge, hating ourselves and others for not reciprocating, or feelings of self righteousness. We see this behavior in animals, like bats, so it is something innate, something natural.

It is important not to confuse morality with compassion, sympathy or empathy, these feelings are related, but they are something else. Morality has to do with reciprocation, the scales of justice, keeping a record of rights and wrongs. When we notice someone has taken more than they have given, that is when the feelings of hate and revenge are activated, we seek to correct this imbalance. Morality can also be partially programmed into people by their parents or society. We can teach others that this type of behavior is unfair, unfair to others, even to ourselves, or that type of behavior is unfair. We may give them an explanation, or not, they may just receive it, without understanding how it is unfair, perhaps it is not really unfair, but society erroneously believes it to be so.

That's right, you can be unfair to yourself, by mindlessly indulging now, and paying no heed to the welfare of your future self.

Morality (d)evolves as society gains a better or worse understanding of what behaviors are (un)fair. Also, morality changes, as our species is biologically changing.

People who think the theory of evolution undermines morality are a little retarded. There's nothing in evolution that says cooperation betwixt individuals can't occur, reciprocation, individuals seeking win win exchanges as opposed to win lose. Win win behavior has advantages to predatory, win lose behavior. However, evolution does undermine the notion that morality is absolute, universal. Morality is often discarded when an individual realizes that there's no point in reciprocating, as they can easily get away with murder, rape, stealing, in short, they feel far superior to others, and they feel they no longer have to give in order to get. Morality can also disappear when one becomes a cynic, when one believes their giving will not be adequately compensated, or when feels they have been mistreated by society.

Yes I understand these things really well, because I am smarter than most people, I am better, so if you have any more questions cran, feel free to ask, for I can help you, I am so wise, and so powerful. Do you think that is unfair assessment of myself? Creatures often try to bring others down to their level, level the playing field. They do this, often unconsciously, to create an environment where they are more likely to be reciprocated. People do naturally do not like it when others feel they are far superior, as gross mental and physical inequality is likely to generate a more hostile environment, full of fear, suspicion, greed and lust.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:57 pm

Some people are conditionally moral, where as some people are unconditionally moral. Do not confuse moral here with love. No one is likely entirely one or the other. Some people are moral i.e. reciprocating regardless of the scenario. Others, like Hannibal Lectre, reserve their morality for a select few. Would you waste your morality on a chicken, or a worm?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:58 pm

Others still are unconditionally amoral.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:03 pm

These people are either cognitively incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions, they just don't care, no matter who they're harming, they may be sadists, or they may be capable of feeling shame/guilt and duty, as well as comprehending the consequences of their actions, but they may not have been adquately informed by society as to what the consequences of their actions are, or they are little slow, but with time, they can grow to understand the consequences of their actions and feel bad about them.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:10 pm

There are also moral eccentrics, they may have a different understanding of what constitutes unfair behaviour, either due to a peculiar biology or a peculiar way of interpreting the consequences of their actions. These men and women aren't sociopaths, they may be extremely more, but it is a morality society doesn't always recognize. It may be because they have been raised in a different culture. There is both a social and an individual aspect to morality, both a biological, cognitive, emotive and experiential element, morality is a very complex phenomenon.

Some libertarians believe that so long as human exchanges are consensual, then there can be no unfairness, even if a man sells another man a shit car that breaks down, and he knew it would break down shortly after he bought it and that he may get into an accident as a result. The libertarian would not even morally intervene in such cases. This is why absolutes like libertarianism cannot exist, nor can the opposite extremes exist, where government and other individuals attempt to regulate every facet of our lives, to make sure all actions are fair and just.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14413
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:22 pm

cranapple wrote:
does being able or having the power to do something give one the "right" to do it?
Let us begin by you defining "right".
Why does one require such a human construct? Is it a form of community approval?

cranapple wrote:
but anyone with "real" sense and honesty knows this is wrong and not true. no one has to be honest with others or themselves. there is only so much the universe cares about but does that mean it's okay if we do the same?
In other words you are proposing an ideal in antithesis to the real.

cranapple wrote:
these immoral bastards or those who favor moral relativism or rationalize morality to the point of nonexistence as superstition or illogical are themselves unconscious or hypocritical.
And, in fact, they need not be driven by "getting away with it" but by ensuring or increasing the possibility for reciprocity.
Nothing "selfless" about it. A more sophisticated tactic.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:32 pm

Sociopaths come in many varieties.

The moral cynic believes most people are amoral, so he reserves his morality for a select few he can trust, and treats most people like shit, he assumes most people would treat him the same anyway, nevermind what they say, actions speak louder.

The conditional moralist believes most people are dumb animals, and they are not worth caring about, their feelings aren't worth considering. If he sees something he wants, and believes he can get away with it, he takes it. He believes most people are dumb retards, and that he can get away with abusing them, so there's no need for him to give, he just takes. He has a morality, but he reserves it for those who he feels are equal to him, and meet his high standards. He doesn't waste his love and his morality on what he considers to be dumb animals (most humans), just as you wouldn't waste much love and morality on the fish you're about to eat. There is some overlap between the conditional moralist and the moral cynic, the moral cynic doesn't waste his love and morality on ingrates, he assumes guilty until proven innocent, the conditional moralist doesn't waste his love on people far dumber and weaker than himself.

The unconditional amoralist is cognitively and emotionally incapable of experiencing moral feelings or unerstanding the consequences of his actions. The variety that understand, but does not give a shit, may sometimes decieve others into believing that he is moral like them, so they'll let their guard down and that is when he strikes.

The moral eccentric is just weird. He has a morality, he's not really a sociopath, he just expresses it in peculiar ways. For example he may steal some of your shit without you knowing, but then give it back to you a few days later. You may be extremely offended that he did not first ask for your shit, but he says what's the big deal, I gave it back to you, didn't I? I wouldn't care if you took some of my shit. You see, because of his culture, or his peculiar cognition, emotions, he does not function morally the way most people do, but he has an idiosyncratic morality of his own.

The moral nihilist. The moral nihilist is just as retarded as the moral absolutist, who believes everyone should conform to his standards, because his standards are the only real standards, or because they are God's standards. The nihilist believes morality doesn't exist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It exists, not just culturally, but biologically, we can see it in children and even some animals, like dogs, bats and some chimps, although we may not always recognize it. A dog is often friendly to the friendly and abusive to the abusive, they are moral beings, like you and me. There are some fools out there though, who believe morality is by definition, absolute, that I couldn't be angry at you for treating me unfairly, unless I thought my feelings were absolute, and existed externally out there in the world, or God approves of them. Morality exists and will go on existing whether humans believe in God or not. I can hate others for mistreating me, just as I can hate a piece of music for sucking, or sitcom for being stupid, there's nothing absolute or transcendent about it. The nihilst is a victim of black and white thinking, if morality isn't absolute, God approved, perfect and logically demonstrable, than it must not exist. Equally retarded as the moral absolutist. Morality is diverse and complex as any other human social behaviour, if extra terrestrial beings exist, they likely have a very different morality from our own, one we may not immediately recognize, due to different cultural developments, different environments and biology, emotive and cognitive development.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: morality Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:40 pm

The moral darwinist, believing competition for survival couldn't give rise to cooperation for survival, may have even duped themselves into denying or ignoring their own feelings of shame and guilt, and duty and justice. They may no longer pay attention to their own moral feelings, or recognize them in others. A pathetic soul indeed, equally pathetic is the man who believes his morality must be in alignment with God's morality, with the bible, that there is only one morality, and it is either an abstraction like Kantianism, utilitarianism or master moality. There are many types of moralities, and the organic is always something just beyond typology, master morality didn't come first, it is not more pure than so called slave morality, if it can even be called a morality. All of these philosophies propose and abstraction and an absolute, and are therefore equally retarded, where as my mind is sound, flexible and capable of comprehending the diversity and complexity of our world. There isn't a more pure, more nature approved morality, or original morality, or God moralities, there are only moralities, can I can hate someone for wronging me, or what I can consider to be wrong, whilst still believing in the diversity of morality.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: morality

Back to top Go down
 
morality
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» The Religious Origins Of Morality And Ethics
» The Post- Modern Crisis Of Social Morality And Ethics

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: