PDA

View Full Version : Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism



Thorburn
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004, 05:41 PM
In the red corner...

Moral Relativism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Moral relativism is a view that claims moral standards are not absolute or universal, but rather emerge from social customs and other sources. Relativists consequently see moral values as applicable only within agreed or accepted cultural boundaries. Very few, if any, people hold this view in its pure form, but hold instead another more qualified verson of it.

Protagoras' notion that "man is the measure of all things" may be seen as an early philosophical precursor to relativism. Moral relativists hold that an unsharable, personal, and aesthetic moral core lies at the foundation of personal choices. They deny the possibility of sharing morality at all, except by convention.

A simple way to express this view is that "everyone draws their own moral from the same story" and behaves according to their own impression, acceptance, or rejection of it.

It is often confused with ethical relativism which holds that morality can be shared but only between closely-knit groups sharing a moral code and committed to joint action, e.g. an ethnic minority in a hostile situation.

A moral relativist, on the other hand, would hold that even people in such a circumstance do not follow a common moral code, but are simply unable to follow their varying personal urges due to social pressure.

* * *

and the blue corner...

Moral Absolutism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Moral absolutism is the belief or theory that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and suggests that morals are not determined by societal or situational influences.

According to Moral Absolutism, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutism is often contrasted with moral relativism.

Moral absolutism regards actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, the death penalty, or childhood female genital mutilation to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism—the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.

Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on the nature of humanity and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice.

Agrippa
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004, 06:23 PM
Like most people I'm rather somewhat inbetween the two positions. But because I tend to believe in certain absolut moral or human "moral" or better duties, as I believe in the limiting character of nature, both of humans and the ecosystem, I tend to moral absolutism.

Siegmund
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004, 06:38 PM
I voted for moral absolutism, though the definition of what actually is "moral" or "immoral" has changed somewhat with wisdom and experience.

Jack
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 01:23 AM
Very few, if any, people hold this view in its pure form, but hold instead another more qualified verson of it.

Then I... am... exceptional.

Siegfried
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 09:02 AM
I'm tempted to say there are certain 'absolute morals', since certain patterns of behaviour lead to the premature death of yourself and/or your genelines. What better proof of 'absolute wrong' can we expect?

Thorburn
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 09:39 AM
Moral absolutism has my vote. There are absolute criteria in human affairs, namely happiness (the final purpose of every human action) and freedom (the nature of human beings). Actions are moral if they maximize happiness. To maximize happiness the human nature has to be respected, i. e. freedom shall never be unjustifiably infringed.

Jack
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Moral absolutism has my vote.This should be fun :D


There are absolute criteria in human affairs, namely happiness (the final purpose of every human action)An is does not imply an ought.


and freedom (the nature of human beings).Let's look at human behaviour throughout history. I see wars, rape, genocide, looting, slavery, egoism and the exercise of power without regard to any utopian 'freedom'. Where do you get this idea of human nature from?


Actions are moral if they maximize happiness.Apparently (according to your statement later in the above post) only within certain limits. I presume this means one should not physically violate the existence of an agent, or appropriate from him whatever he has laid claim to by 'mixing his labour' with without his consent. If 'actions are moral if they maximize happiness', and all humans aim at happiness, how can an action be considered immoral?


To maximize happiness the human nature has to be respected, i. e. freedom shall never be unjustifiably infringed.What is this idea of justice, who defines what it is, and how is it to be exercised within a network of interrelating humans (i.e. a community)?

Ederico
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 10:27 AM
I share most of the views expressed in this discussion and in fact I tend more towards Moral Absolutism. However the crux of the question is that it is quite hard to determine what is absolutely and universally moral and in fact as the wikipedia article states Moral Absolutism is used in the modern Human Rights theory which is of detriment to the Western World because of its universal application. Moral Absolutism is in itself utopic and it is easier to hold on to it idealistically then to implement it pragmatically, that is the potential reason why Moral Relativism appeals to a wider section of the Western population.

Moral Consequentialism is a sort of golden mean and in reality I favour such a situation as it is more pragmatic than the overtly idealistic Moral Absolutism.

In my opinion, Moral Relativism can be considered as part or an actual cause of the rot of Western Civilisation and the destruction of once sane traditional societies that had decent values even though they lacked material wealth.

Jack
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 10:29 AM
I'm tempted to say there are certain 'absolute morals', since certain patterns of behaviour lead to the premature death of yourself and/or your genelines.
This is relative to the idea that preserving the self and/or genelines is important :P


What better proof of 'absolute wrong' can we expect?
I don't know. I'm not looking for absolutes :D

Thorburn
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 11:45 AM
This should be fun :D You enjoy losing? :P


An is does not imply an ought. It's absolutely self-fulfilling. Deniers will be assimilated.


Let's look at human behaviour throughout history. I see wars, rape, genocide, looting, slavery, egoism and the exercise of power without regard to any utopian 'freedom'. Where do you get this idea of human nature from? Proves exactly the point. Pursuit of happiness (the purpose of every action; in this case very limited and always unmaximized but, on the long run, ever growing) by freedom (human nature; in this case arbitrary but, on the long run, becoming ever more concrete) in other words.


Apparently (according to your statement later in the above post) only within certain limits. I presume this means one should not physically violate the existence of an agent, or appropriate from him whatever he has laid claim to by 'mixing his labour' with without his consent. If 'actions are moral if they maximize happiness', and all humans aim at happiness, how can an action be considered immoral? They are immoral if they don't maximize happiness. Some pharao and his slave driver lackeys might get very happy by enslaving an army of people to build some pyramids but far more unhappiness for hundredthousands of slave workers is created in the process by the enforcement of an order contrary to their nature (freedom). This collective unhappiness will, on the long run, lead to progress. Progress is the increase of (collective) happiness by maximization of freedom for some, and in the last consequence, for everyone. This will lead to equal freedom for all individuals being limited only by the freedom of others: "nobody shall be deprived of life, (health,) liberty, (or) property, (or honor)" -- "without due process of law" (should read: "unjustifiably in a society committed to freedom and the pursuit of happiness and without due process of law", but it has been awesome progress already.)


What is this idea of justice, who defines what it is, and how is it to be exercised within a network of interrelating humans (i.e. a community)? Justice is moral action, i. e. maximization of happiness. It shall be guaranteed if equal freedom (the requirement for the pursuit of happiness of human beings) is not unjustifiably infringed (and not more than necessary), and if equal affairs are treated equal and unequal affairs unequal, both in accordance with their nature, their relationship, and in proportion.

Happiness and freedom are really closely linked, albeit not exactly identical. A state can restrict even concrete freedom -- freedom that doesn't infringe upon the freedom of others -- if collective happiness is increased; compare for example the ban of obscene behavior in public (note that such cases always require some direct influence upon others; you can, on the other hand, run around naked in your own home behind closed doors). More important, however, are the cases where concrete freedom is limited for the purpose of safeguarding freedom, i. e. potential future happiness. Military service to protect a society with a higher degree of happiness and freedom from the invasion through barbarians and from slavery, for example.

Immigration shall be barred and the multi-racial society will have to be opposed on the same grounds. Happiness and the safeguarding of freedom.

Thorburn
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 12:23 PM
I share most of the views expressed in this discussion and in fact I tend more towards Moral Absolutism. However the crux of the question is that it is quite hard to determine what is absolutely and universally moral and in fact as the wikipedia article states Moral Absolutism is used in the modern Human Rights theory which is of detriment to the Western World because of its universal application. This is absolutely false. Human rights have been awesome progress (self-fulfilling again; you will not be able to undo them on the long run) and they are surely not to the detriment of the West. There is no human right to immigrate to the West and to live in Europe. A right to become a member of a group against its will is detrimental to freedom and human nature. It violates human rights, in other words. That's quite similar to the laws many European nations know that one is not entitled to bar people on arbitrary grounds from one's property (e. g. gypsies from pubs.) These laws are actually a violation of freedom and human rights, like the hate-speech laws are a violation of freedom and human rights, and none of them will last on the long run.


Moral Absolutism is in itself utopic and it is easier to hold on to it idealistically then to implement it pragmatically, that is the potential reason why Moral Relativism appeals to a wider section of the Western population. Moral relativism is a tiny minority opinion amongst intellectuals. Most Europeans really believe in some sort of moral absolutism; this is in particular true for Christians.


In my opinion, Moral Relativism can be considered as part or an actual cause of the rot of Western Civilisation and the destruction of once sane traditional societies that had decent values even though they lacked material wealth. Moral relativists have hardly an impact. The problem is to enforce the wrong values absolutely, in particular egalitarianism ("treat different things equal"), as it has been and is promoted by many leftists and certain desert religions. To my surprise, so many people really still confuse freedom with egalitarianism. The U.S. term "liberal" even refers to an egalitarian what aggravates the confusion. The problem of the West is not having too much freedom but having too little freedom. There is a quasi-totalitarian enforcement of racial, social, cultural, and gender egalitarianism; and a fundamental attack on the freedom of thought, of expression, and, above all, the freedom of individuals and of the society to act contrary to the enforced egalitarian dogmas.

Ederico
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 05:53 PM
I would have to agree after your clarification that the inefficiency of Moral Absolutism relates to the fact that it is the Morals that are wrong rather than the Absolutism.

A few questions would be:

Who defines the right set of values within a Moral Absolutist system and what checks and balances are in place to avoid abuse of power in the name of Moral Absolutism?
How can the right Moral Absolutist society enforce such a position without the use of coercion and/or the infringement of the rights to freedom of individuals?
Within a collective perspective such as a Nation and its Administration how does the Moral Absolutist safeguard the interest of the collective he represents in relation to other collectives and in relations to enemies within?
Does Moral Absolutism include Universalism per forza?
Can Moral Absolutism be applied over distinct Cultures?

Those are just a few questions that I came up with in the few minutes that I wrote this post.

Milesian
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 07:11 PM
Moral Absolutism, of course :)

Siegfried
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 07:22 PM
This is relative to the idea that preserving the self and/or genelines is important

Nature seems to dispose of those who do not consider it important. Once again; what better proof of 'absolute wrong' can we expect?



I don't know. I'm not looking for absolutes :D

I do :P Good luck convincing someone of a morality explicitly built on relatives ;)

Jack
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 12:29 PM
You enjoy losing? :P
Variety, as they say, is the spice of life :D


It's absolutely self-fulfilling. Deniers will be assimilated.
Happiness is not absolute. There is happy, more happy, happier than that... but there's no final 'absolute happiness'.


Proves exactly the point. Pursuit of happiness (the purpose of every action; in this case very limited and always unmaximized but, on the long run, ever growing) by freedom (human nature; in this case arbitrary but, on the long run, becoming ever more concrete) in other words.
Am I to understand the above as 'all humans want X and the struggle for X will develop Y which will further foster the pursuit of X' where X = happiness and Y = freedom? If so, that's interesting, because how would you explain, through this 'progress' myth, how the Roman Empire collapsed and resulted in continental wide serfdom?


They are immoral if they don't maximize happiness. Some pharao and his slave driver lackeys might get very happy by enslaving an army of people to build some pyramids but far more unhappiness for hundredthousands of slave workers is created in the process by the enforcement of an order contrary to their nature (freedom).
So, basically, 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'.


This collective unhappiness will, on the long run, lead to progress.
Groups do not 'become happy', individuals do. Individuals are well capable of distorting, through power, the interests of others and subordinating others to their own interests.


Progress is the increase of (collective) happiness by maximization of freedom for some, and in the last consequence, for everyone. This will lead to equal freedom for all individuals being limited only by the freedom of others: "nobody shall be deprived of life, (health,) liberty, (or) property, (or honor)" -- "without due process of law" (should read: "unjustifiably in a society committed to freedom and the pursuit of happiness and without due process of law", but it has been awesome progress already.)
So here Njörd does away with the concept of choice, claiming we are inevitably driven by some instinct towards a liberal society. Which calls into question the idea of 'good vs bad', and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like you're calling for us to follow the path of least resistance.


Justice is moral action, i. e. maximization of happiness. It shall be guaranteed if equal freedom (the requirement for the pursuit of happiness of human beings) is not unjustifiably infringed (and not more than necessary),
How can 'the requirement for the pursuit of happiness' be justifiably infringed, Njörd?


and if equal affairs are treated equal and unequal affairs unequal, both in accordance with their nature, their relationship, and in proportion.
And this means...? Better put - why should I bow to a specific Government with its own laws which I may not agree with? Why should I not pick up a gun, make a fence around my land and tell that Government that if any of its agents cross my fence I'll shoot them? Is that not the right to property, to do whatever one wants with one's own property? Now if a Turk has claim via property rights to a section of land in what is called Germany, by what justice do you claim the right to expel him? The whims of the masses?


Happiness and freedom are really closely linked, albeit not exactly identical. A state can restrict even concrete freedom -- freedom that doesn't infringe upon the freedom of others -- if collective happiness is increased; compare for example the ban of obscene behavior in public (note that such cases always require some direct influence upon others; you can, on the other hand, run around naked in your own home behind closed doors). More important, however, are the cases where concrete freedom is limited for the purpose of safeguarding freedom, i. e. potential future happiness. Military service to protect a society with a higher degree of happiness and freedom from the invasion through barbarians and from slavery, for example.
So, basically, it's ok to enslave people if the majority are happy.


Immigration shall be barred and the multi-racial society will have to be opposed on the same grounds. Happiness and the safeguarding of freedom.
Right. Let's violate freedom, the apparent prerequisite for happiness, in order to protect both.

Siegfried
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 03:27 PM
If happiness is the ultimate measure of progress, so that even freedom can be restricted to increase happiness, there are no valid arguments against a State like Huxley described in his Brave New World, right? After all, those people were happy; they were comfortably numb, glad they belonged to their respective castes, and enjoyed promiscuous sexuality and mind altering drugs. They were reduced to incomplete humans and had their consciousness and personal will corrupted, but if it's alll about 'feeling happy', what's to say against that?



Is that not the right to property, to do whatever one wants with one's own property? Now if a Turk has claim via property rights to a section of land in what is called Germany, by what justice do you claim the right to expel him? The whims of the masses?

Property rights are meaningless without State approval. There's no such thing as an objective right to property, or at least I'm unaware of such a right. The State that has granted the Turk property rights to a section of land, can also repeal them, as such rights only exist within the legal system of said State.

Jack
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 10:41 PM
If happiness is the ultimate measure of progress, so that even freedom can be restricted to increase happiness, there are no valid arguments against a State like Huxley described in his Brave New World, right? After all, those people were happy; they were comfortably numb, glad they belonged to their respective castes, and enjoyed promiscuous sexuality and mind altering drugs. They were reduced to incomplete humans and had their consciousness and personal will corrupted, but if it's alll about 'feeling happy', what's to say against that?

Njörd, apparently, would approve.


Property rights are meaningless without State approval. There's no such thing as an objective right to property, or at least I'm unaware of such a right. The State that has granted the Turk property rights to a section of land, can also repeal them, as such rights only exist within the legal system of said State.

And now we've gone to drop 'justice' from the equation and now focus on law, the realm of self-regulating force. :D

Thorburn
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 12:18 AM
Variety, as they say, is the spice of life :D Indeed. The unhappiness caused by this defeat will guarantee that you enjoy your future victories against Moody and AryanKrieger more. :P


Happiness is not absolute. There is happy, more happy, happier than that... Right.


but there's no final 'absolute happiness'. Who said there is? You can't stay constantly on a plateau of a high degree of happiness.

Firstly, there are surely chemical limits to how happy one can feel. We might not have discovered the biologically possible peak experience yet, but I don't think there is currently any drug, act, or proceeding known to man that makes people feel more happy than injecting coke or smoking crack, i. e. rapid reuptake inhibition of dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine. The problem is that you can't stay on this level for too long, and even if you could, barring all negative side-effects, you would soon consider it neither particularly pleasant nor disturbing. Crushing, however, will give you an unpleasant experience of depression and unhappiness.

Secondly, I think these relative and conditioned mechanisms of happiness are well-known. There is this old joke about how to make a dog happy: stop beating him. How to you make a smoker happy? Deprive him of smokes for 12 hours, then throw a cigarette. When does plain bread taste divine? If you haven't eaten for three days. There is a balance to be kept.

However, all other factors being equal, people are happier if free than if enslaved. Do you disagree?


Am I to understand the above as 'all humans want X and the struggle for X will develop Y which will further foster the pursuit of X' where X = happiness and Y = freedom? Absolutely correct.


If so, that's interesting, because how would you explain, through this 'progress' myth It's not a myth, it's a fact.


how the Roman Empire collapsed and resulted in continental wide serfdom? Ignorance. Invasion by barbarians. A sufficient freedom consciousness caused by reflection and by historical experiences of injustice had not been educationally spread all over Europe to a sufficient number of people of the elite and the masses. It had not been constitutionally, legally, and institutionally sufficiently entrenched either. So people have to learn the hard way again. There have been regresses all over history. Bolshevism, Fascism, and Nazism only in the last century.

How many people from abroad wanted to live in the USSR? A handful, and those only if they were promised power, status, and privileges. How many people wanted to live in the USA, the state that, since it has been founded, protected freedom more effectively than any other state on this planet? Millions and millions and millions. And they were promised neither power, nor status, nor privileges. Not even health care and social security. But they were promised freedom and guaranteed freedom -- not fully developed concrete freedom, but a higher developed degree of freedom than anywhere else. And that's why they poor and oppressed and exploited came, and that's why half of the world would move to America if they only could.


So, basically, 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'. Self-evident.


Groups do not 'become happy', individuals do. If the individuals of a group are happy, the group is happy.


Individuals are well capable of distorting, through power, the interests of others and subordinating others to their own interests. Your point?


So here Njörd does away with the concept of choice, claiming we are inevitably driven by some instinct towards a liberal society. Not a liberal society ('liberal' in the U.S. sense means egalitarian; egalitarianism is opposed to freedom, because freedom leads to difference) but a society that respects freedom.


Which calls into question the idea of 'good vs bad', and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like you're calling for us to follow the path of least resistance. Not at all.


How can 'the requirement for the pursuit of happiness' be justifiably infringed, Njörd? Given that freedom is a prerequisite for all higher experiences of happiness, it can be justifiably infringed, if the degree of this infringment protects freedom more effectively than if no infringment would have taken place. Military draft to protect the freedom-conscious society against the invasion of less freedom-conscious barbarians and slavery is the classic example.


And this means...? Better put - why should I bow to a specific Government with its own laws which I may not agree with? If it makes you unhappy, you shouldn't.


Why should I not pick up a gun, make a fence around my land and tell that Government that if any of its agents cross my fence I'll shoot them? That's exactly what you should do if it makes you more happy.


Is that not the right to property, to do whatever one wants with one's own property? For sure.


Now if a Turk has claim via property rights to a section of land in what is called Germany, by what justice do you claim the right to expel him? The whims of the masses? Happiness for my people. You can believe me that they would be much happier, if the Turks would all be gone by tomorrow, as every poll shows.

Additionally, freedom is much better safe-guarded by a mono-ethnic and mono-racial society. The U.S. will finally collapse because of lack of racial and ethnic homogenity and because of ignorance, same reason the Roman Empire collapsed.

Needless to say, I'm also not a racial egalitarian. I do not expect by the mere evolutionary advancement of Negroes, for example, that they are going to create a society that lastingly respects the freedom of individuals anytime soon.


So, basically, it's ok to enslave people if the majority are happy. For sure. But given that, by their human nature, and all other factors being equal, people are always happier in freedom than in slavery, it's simply not going to last.

You had people selling themselves into a relative form of slavery, namely totalitarianism, if their most basic needs (food and shelter from the elements) have not been satisfied, but it's not going to last. Once these needs and basic security are satisfied, they will want their freedom of speech, their freedom of conscience, their freedom to act according to their own choices back. All totalitarian societies are immanently self-destructive.It's self-fulfilling.


Right. Let's violate freedom, the apparent prerequisite for happiness, in order to protect both. See above.

Jack
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 01:01 AM
Indeed. The unhappiness caused by this defeat will guarantee that you enjoy your future victories against Moody and AryanKrieger more. :P
Haha, maybe. What future victories against Moody? It's like Big Brother got to him and put him in Room 101.

Right.


Who said there is? You can't stay constantly on a plateau of a high degree of happiness.

Firstly, there are surely chemical limits to how happy one can feel. We might not have discovered the biologically possible peak experience yet, but I don't think there is currently any drug, act, or proceeding known to man that makes people feel more happy than injecting coke or smoking crack, i. e. rapid reuptake inhibition of dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine. The problem is that you can't stay on this level for too long, and even if you could, barring all negative side-effects, you would soon consider it neither particularly pleasant nor disturbing. Crushing, however, will give you an unpleasant experience of depression and unhappiness.
My point stands that it's relative :P Happiness is relative to the chemical abilities of the brain.


Secondly, I think these relative and conditioned mechanisms of happiness are well-known. There is this old joke about how to make a dog happy: stop beating him. How to you make a smoker happy? Deprive him of smokes for 12 hours, then throw a cigarette. When does plain bread taste divine? If you haven't eaten for three days. There is a balance to be kept.
Ok.


However, all other factors being equal, people are happier if free than if enslaved. Do you disagree?
I believe it's impossible to know because no one has ever been truly free :D


Absolutely correct.

It's not a myth, it's a fact.
Fact until the world economy collapses, people riot on the streets, millions starve to death because of labour shortages and loads of people on welfare, inter-ethnocultural conflict, etc. This does not necessarily mean 'the world is getting better'.


Ignorance. Invasion by barbarians. A sufficient freedom consciousness caused by reflection and by historical experiences of injustice had not been educationally spread all over Europe to a sufficient number of people of the elite and the masses. It had not been constitutionally, legally, and institutionally sufficiently entrenched either. So people have to learn the hard way again. There have been regresses all over history. Bolshevism, Fascism, and Nazism only in the last century.
*blinks*

I comprehend the madness... :D


How many people from abroad wanted to live in the USSR? A handful, and those only if they were promised power, status, and privileges. How many people wanted to live in the USA, the state that, since it has been founded, protected freedom more effectively than any other state on this planet?
Actually I'd say Switzerland does a better job, but anyway. The US also abandoned 'freedom' in the 1860's.


Millions and millions and millions. And they were promised neither power, nor status, nor privileges. Not even health care and social security. But they were promised freedom and guaranteed freedom -- not fully developed concrete freedom, but a higher developed degree of freedom than anywhere else. And that's why they poor and oppressed and exploited came, and that's why half of the world would move to America if they only could.

Self-evident.
Wonderful. Really, it is.


If the individuals of a group are happy, the group is happy.
So what is 'the group'? Is it a collection of individuals put together under the same concept you construct, or does the group actually have some substance?


Your point?
It will happen again, and again, and again.


Not a liberal society ('liberal' in the U.S. sense means egalitarian; egalitarianism is opposed to freedom, because freedom leads to difference) but a society that respects freedom.
I meant liberal in the sense of a society that respects freedom. 'Liberal' in Australia generally means liberalism (not liberal socialism)
Not at all.


Given that freedom is a prerequisite for all higher experiences of happiness, it can be justifiably infringed, if the degree of this infringment protects freedom more effectively than if no infringment would have taken place. Military draft to protect the freedom-conscious society against the invasion of less freedom-conscious barbarians and slavery is the classic example.
Are you going to tell that to the ten thousand American corpses that were created in Vietnam, who were drafter to fight a war that they had no real interest in, and many who weren't too keen on fighting it anyway?


If it makes you unhappy, you shouldn't.
Ok.


That's exactly what you should do if it makes you more happy.
We are progressing slowly towards my hidden ideology of Anarcho Neo-Fascism. OK then.


For sure.
Then you don't really believe in freedom of speech or property rights, only happiness of the mob. Freedom is not an absolute, according to Njörd, but its importance is entirely dependent on happiness. Furthermore, if one could make a drug that would keep someone 'happy' for a year at a time, and 3/4 of Germans loved it and wanted the rest to take it, or they would be 'unhappy', Njörd would have no issues force feeding this drug to the rest.


Happiness for my people. You can believe me that they would be much happier, if the Turks would all be gone by tomorrow, as every poll shows.
So it's ok if fourty people demand the murder of 39 or they'll all fall into clinical depression because it's happiness for the majority, right?


Additionally, freedom is much better safe-guarded by a mono-ethnic and mono-racial society. The U.S. will finally collapse because of lack of racial and ethnic homogenity and because of ignorance, same reason the Roman Empire collapsed.
I actually agree with this part.


Needless to say, I'm also not a racial egalitarian. I do not expect by the mere evolutionary advancement of Negroes, for example, that they are going to create a society that lastingly respects the freedom of individuals anytime soon.
Ok.


For sure. But given that, by their human nature, and all other factors being equal, people are always happier in freedom than in slavery, it's simply not going to last.
And when are all other factors going to be equal?


You had people selling themselves into a relative form of slavery, namely totalitarianism, if their most basic needs (food and shelter from the elements) have not been satisfied, but it's not going to last. Once these needs and basic security are satisfied, they will want their freedom of speech, their freedom of conscience, their freedom to act according to their own choices back. All totalitarian societies are immanently self-destructive.It's self-fulfilling.
There might be, perhaps, ten thousand free people on this planet. I'm not sure they have 'all other factors equal' or whether it's possible for them to have all other factors equal.


See above.
I fail to see any justice theory evolving out of this.

Thorburn
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 02:22 AM
My point stands that it's relative :P Happiness is relative to the chemical abilities of the brain. Still a strawman, because nobody argued otherwise.


I believe it's impossible to know because no one has ever been truly free :D It doesn't need an absolute to demonstrate it. All other factors being equal, people are happier if having more freedom than if having less freedom.


Fact until the world economy collapses, people riot on the streets, millions starve to death because of labour shortages and loads of people on welfare, inter-ethnocultural conflict, etc. This does not necessarily mean 'the world is getting better'. I'm also not claiming it's getting better at any arbitrary spot of this planet at any arbitrary point in time. I'm claiming there is progress on the long run.


Actually I'd say Switzerland does a better job, but anyway. Everything considered, it probably does.


The US also abandoned 'freedom' in the 1860's. Relatively, sure. Liberties in the U.S. have been on a constant decline since its foundation. There is still far more liberty than in most states left, however. Once it gets too oppressive, the tree of liberty will be refreshed with the blood of tyrannts.


So what is 'the group'? Is it a collection of individuals put together under the same concept you construct, or does the group actually have some substance? A group is a plurality of individuals.


It will happen again, and again, and again. For sure. And, on the long run, ever more freedom-consciousness will be preserved.


Are you going to tell that to the ten thousand American corpses that were created in Vietnam, who were drafter to fight a war that they had no real interest in, and many who weren't too keen on fighting it anyway? No, it didn't protect the American nation and its freedom. It was an imperialist war.


We are progressing slowly towards my hidden ideology of Anarcho Neo-Fascism. OK then. That was the idea. ;)


Then you don't really believe in freedom of speech or property rights, only happiness of the mob. Equal freedom will lead to most happiness. The belief in the one causes the belief in the other. However, it can simply not be debated that it is happiness that is the last instance that motivates all actions of people.


Freedom is not an absolute, It is not an absolute, right. How could it be an absolute?


according to Njörd, but its importance is entirely dependent on happiness. Right.


Furthermore, if one could make a drug that would keep someone 'happy' for a year at a time, and 3/4 of Germans loved it and wanted the rest to take it, or they would be 'unhappy', Njörd would have no issues force feeding this drug to the rest. It's not a realistic scenario because there are biological and chemical limits of drugs, and because you still do not consider all parameters.

However, there are already some drugs that come very close to this idea, actually. Take Prozac, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. It prevents the reuptake of serotonin, a neurotransmitter, and so contributes to lucency and quiteness of the mind. Like Cocaine does but not rapidly, extremely and short-lasting but slowly, hardly noticably, and long-lasting. Some people report "crushes" if they stop after months or years, but the majority doesn't. It also really works for most people and they would feel happier than before, all other circumstances being unchanged. For most people, it has really no side-effects. There are studies that suggest that it is safe during pregnancy even. It does not impair judgment but invigorates it. That's at least what the current scientific community and the drug industry tells us.

So, most people, all other circumstances of their lives remaining equal, would probably be happier if they took it, minus those who develop disproportional side-effects. So why not force-feed it to people in schools, at university, in the military and at the work-place? I mean, in some countries, they force-fed Fluor tablets to us already in schools while we were kids, no? Why not force-feed Prozac?

Well, these Fluor tablets eventually turned out not to be so beneficial as they have been thought then. Science might be wrong, and there might be long-term effects associated with controlled Prozac use that are still unknown. There might be side-effects that have not been thoroughly established. Do you trust your government to decide what you can say or not? Why would you trust your government or the pharma-industry to establish which drugs you can't take and which you have to take? They might have an agenda to push this drug onto you -- maybe they found out that if you take it long enough you will turn into a mindless hippie voting for them again. Maybe they just want to silence you. Maybe they want to get rid of you. Maybe your God or conscience tells you better not to take any drugs. So, force-feeding of drugs, like the prohibition of drugs, leads to lots of insecurity and unhappiness, because it disrespects the freedom of choice of those blessed with them.

Even if 3/4 of the population like a certain drug (that's the case with alcohol, for example), how much happiness does it create for them to push it onto the rest that abhor it? Nil. (Realistically spoken, even more unhappiness than happiness.) In either way, the balance is negative, and that's why freedom should be preserved, and why it would be an immoral action.


So it's ok if fourty people demand the murder of 39 or they'll all fall into clinical depression because it's happiness for the majority, right? If that would be the whole world population and if there would be guarantees that it would stop there, it would be the moral thing to do, for sure, given that more happiness than unhappiness would be created. The unhappiness of the one person in question could be easily limited by choosing a quick and painless method of death. The happiness for the many could be created by a lot of factors, e. g. they feel threatened that he could murder them.

However, there are no guarantees and this is again not a realistic scenario, and I might still not have made clear how happiness and freedom (and the integrity of the person, the right to live is the most fundamental freedom) are interwoven. If a person can be killed arbitrarily by a group, then this will create insecurity and unhappiness for every surviving member of the group. Who is to say that he is not going to be the next one that is killed because someone does not like his nose or wants to rape his wife? Thus, after a few of these experiences the group will form a gentlemen's agreement, tacitly or explicitly, that nobody shall be unjustifiedly deprived of his life (= his freedom to live), and that whoever does this to anyone else shall be painfully tortured and murdered himself to deter. There you have your first murder statute protecting the freedom of man, and all formed out of the desire to be happy.


And when are all other factors going to be equal?

There might be, perhaps, ten thousand free people on this planet. I'm not sure they have 'all other factors equal' or whether it's possible for them to have all other factors equal. For sure, it's a constant struggle, but on the long run self-fulfilling. Even now, in the exploitative Capitalist West, the laborer has much more freedom than in the slaveholder or Communist society.


I fail to see any justice theory evolving out of this. Think about it. What's injustice? ;)

Jack
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 06:56 AM
Still a strawman, because nobody argued otherwise.Last I checked this thread was 'Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism'. That 'vs' implies an opposite, an incompatibility. And if you want to declare that last sentance wrong, I'll concede the whole debate.


It doesn't need an absolute to demonstrate it. All other factors being equal, people are happier if having more freedom than if having less freedom.Proof? Oh, that's right, it's Hegelianism, it doesn't need proof :P


I'm also not claiming it's getting better at any arbitrary spot of this planet at any arbitrary point in time. I'm claiming there is progress on the long run.So you drop empiricism in favour of head-in-the-clouds dreaming. Ok.


Everything considered, it probably does.I know it does :P


Relatively, sure.The individual lost the right to his own property during the American civil war. An American citizen is no longer permitted to declare his own land a different country and use it however he wishes. Lincoln was a tyrant.


Liberties in the U.S. have been on a constant decline since its foundation. There is still far more liberty than in most states left, however. Once it gets too oppressive, the tree of liberty will be refreshed with the blood of tyrannts.If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll try to get out immediately. Drop it in a pot of cold water, and slowly raise the temperature over a few hours, and it will sit there, cook, and die.


A group is a plurality of individuals.Better put: do these individuals relate to each other and share a common basic identity arising out of both these interrelations and those outside the group? Or is it a collection you've lumped together because they share, say, green eyes for example.


For sure. And, on the long run, ever more freedom-consciousness will be preserved.I would not call this progress. I'd be more inclined to call it cyclical history.


No, it didn't protect the American nation and its freedom. It was an imperialist war.And what's the difference between perception and actuality?


That was the idea. ;)Hmmm. Interesting. I don't want to unveil my mysterious political ideology until I'm tired of reading different philosophers and slowly integrating their ideas in together with it.


Equal freedom will lead to most happiness. The belief in the one causes the belief in the other. However, it can simply not be debated that it is happiness that is the last instance that motivates all actions of people.Ok. Let's say I agree with you. And then, I ask, why happiness, this state of feeling brilliant (for lack of better words)? What purpose does happiness itself serve to those who feel it?


It is not an absolute, right. How could it be an absolute?Morally inviolable principle = absolute.


Right.Ok.


It's not a realistic scenario because there are biological and chemical limits of drugs, and because you still do not consider all parameters.

However, there are already some drugs that come very close to this idea, actually. Take Prozac, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. It prevents the reuptake of serotonin, a neurotransmitter, and so contributes to lucency and quiteness of the mind. Like Cocaine does but not rapidly, extremely and short-lasting but slowly, hardly noticably, and long-lasting. Some people report "crushes" if they stop after months or years, but the majority doesn't. It also really works for most people and they would feel happier than before, all other circumstances being unchanged. For most people, it has really no side-effects. There are studies that suggest that it is safe during pregnancy even. It does not impair judgment but invigorates it. That's at least what the current scientific community and the drug industry tells us.

So, most people, all other circumstances of their lives remaining equal, would probably be happier if they took it, minus those who develop disproportional side-effects. So why not force-feed it to people in schools, at university, in the military and at the work-place? I mean, in some countries, they force-fed Fluor tablets to us already in schools while we were kids, no? Why not force-feed Prozac?

Well, these Fluor tablets eventually turned out not to be so beneficial as they have been thought then. Science might be wrong, and there might be long-term effects associated with controlled Prozac use that are still unknown. There might be side-effects that have not been thoroughly established. Do you trust your government to decide what you can say or not? Why would you trust your government or the pharma-industry to establish which drugs you can't take and which you have to take? They might have an agenda to push this drug onto you -- maybe they found out that if you take it long enough you will turn into a mindless hippie voting for them again. Maybe they just want to silence you. Maybe they want to get rid of you. Maybe your God or conscience tells you better not to take any drugs. So, force-feeding of drugs, like the prohibition of drugs, leads to lots of insecurity and unhappiness, because it disrespects the freedom of choice of those blessed with them.But what if they enjoy it afterwards? Like Moody's ridiculous 'forced to be free' argument :P


Even if 3/4 of the population like a certain drug (that's the case with alcohol, for example), how much happiness does it create for them to push it onto the rest that abhor it? Nil. (Realistically spoken, even more unhappiness than happiness.) In either way, the balance is negative, and that's why freedom should be preserved, and why it would be an immoral action.


If that would be the whole world population and if there would be guarantees that it would stop there, it would be the moral thing to do, for sure, given that more happiness than unhappiness would be created. The unhappiness of the one person in question could be easily limited by choosing a quick and painless method of death. The happiness for the many could be created by a lot of factors, e. g. they feel threatened that he could murder them.

However, there are no guarantees and this is again not a realistic scenario, and I might still not have made clear how happiness and freedom (and the integrity of the person, the right to live is the most fundamental freedom) are interwoven. If a person can be killed arbitrarily by a group, then this will create insecurity and unhappiness for every surviving member of the group. Who is to say that he is not going to be the next one that is killed because someone does not like his nose or wants to rape his wife? Thus, after a few of these experiences the group will form a gentlemen's agreement, tacitly or explicitly, that nobody shall be unjustifiedly deprived of his life (= his freedom to live), and that whoever does this to anyone else shall be painfully tortured and murdered himself to deter. There you have your first murder statute protecting the freedom of man, and all formed out of the desire to be happy.So you think it's ok to rely on 'feelings' in order to kill someone, even if there's no concrete evidence that those 39 people actually had the intention of killing the other fourty (or however many, for example). They might load guns, scream invectives, and organise and draw up plans which may lead you or I to think those 39 want to kill the rest. But they could be acting. Sick humour, for example. Is it still ok to kill them?


For sure, it's a constant struggle, but on the long run self-fulfilling. Even now, in the exploitative Capitalist West, the laborer has much more freedom than in the slaveholder or Communist society. Now, how do you manage to oppose capitalism while upholding the right to property? Does an individual not have the right (even in your system) to save his money and get others to invest, buy materials, assemble a factory, and then hire labourers who agree to work for a certain amount of hours at a certain wage rate of their own free will, organise a marketing campaign so customers will be aware and may choose to buy his products? Or does the right to produce, distribute, market and invest one's own property somehow manage to be seperable from the right to do whatever one wants (without harming others) with his own property? Presuming you do actually believe in the right to the product of your own labour... :suspect

Just what is this mythical exploitation and how do you manage to logically uphold your opposition to capitalism based on your Hegelian logic?


Think about it. What's injustice? ;)Whatever I'd like to believe it is.

Thorburn
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 12:42 PM
Last I checked this thread was 'Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism'. That 'vs' implies an opposite, an incompatibility. And if you want to declare that last sentance wrong, I'll concede the whole debate. It's absolute as criteria, obviously. So you concede?


Proof?The motivation of every action is to increase happiness. Limitation of actions leads to limitations of ways to increase happiness. Consequently, lack of freedom limits the increase of happiness.


Oh, that's right, it's Hegelianism, it doesn't need proof :P Source?


So you drop empiricism in favour of head-in-the-clouds dreaming. Ok. No, I rely on long-term observation supported by reason.


The individual lost the right to his own property during the American civil war. An American citizen is no longer permitted to declare his own land a different country and use it however he wishes. There you go.


If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll try to get out immediately. Drop it in a pot of cold water, and slowly raise the temperature over a few hours, and it will sit there, cook, and die. Source? In any way, fallacious reasoning as one can't logically induce a rule from a single example of a heat-related behavior of a certain species of a class of animals and apply it to freedom-related behavior of a certain species of a different class.


Better put: do these individuals relate to each other and share a common basic identity arising out of both these interrelations and those outside the group? Or is it a collection you've lumped together because they share, say, green eyes for example. Group identities exist in the mind of individuals.


I would not call this progress. I'd be more inclined to call it cyclical history. Would be so, if nothing would be preserved and.... which stages do your cycles have and how are they defined?


And what's the difference between perception and actuality? Perceptions are like arseholes. Everyone has one.


Hmmm. Interesting. I don't want to unveil my mysterious political ideology until I'm tired of reading different philosophers and slowly integrating their ideas in together with it. If you want to make philosophical progress, you have to resolve the contradictions of Hegel on a higher level. :P


Ok. Let's say I agree with you. And then, I ask, why happiness, this state of feeling brilliant (for lack of better words)? What purpose does happiness itself serve to those who feel it? In the greater scheme of things survival, in the sense of more likely than not.


Morally inviolable principle = absolute. If I accept your definition, then it isn't, as I said.


But what if they enjoy it afterwards? It's like a woman that might have enjoyed the sex when having been raped by the right guy. That would be post actionem consent, and thus the act is not immoral.


Like Moody's ridiculous 'forced to be free' argument :P I missed it?


So you think it's ok to rely on 'feelings' in order to kill someone, even if there's no concrete evidence that those 39 people actually had the intention of killing the other fourty (or however many, for example). They might load guns, scream invectives, and organise and draw up plans which may lead you or I to think those 39 want to kill the rest. But they could be acting. Sick humour, for example. Is it still ok to kill them? Putative self-defense in due proportion is permissible.


Now, how do you manage to oppose capitalism while upholding the right to property? Does an individual not have the right (even in your system) to save his money and get others to invest, buy materials, assemble a factory, and then hire labourers who agree to work for a certain amount of hours at a certain wage rate of their own free will, organise a marketing campaign so customers will be aware and may choose to buy his products? Or does the right to produce, distribute, market and invest one's own property somehow manage to be seperable from the right to do whatever one wants (without harming others) with his own property? Presuming you do actually believe in the right to the product of your own labour... :suspect

Just what is this mythical exploitation and how do you manage to logically uphold your opposition to capitalism based on your Hegelian logic?The term Capitalism, as I use it, encompasses much more than you described. Above all violation of freedom by a monetary monopoly that leads to interest slavery, illegitimate accumulation of wealth and exploitation.

Jack
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 01:10 PM
It's absolute as criteria, obviously. So you concede?
On the point that relativism is incompatible with absolutism. If you say they are compatible, I concede.


The motivation of every action is to increase happiness. Limitation of actions leads to limitations of ways to increase happiness. Consequently, lack of freedom limits the increase of happiness.
And if we limit the ways which people can harm themselves, say, suicide - is that ok? Say that a Christian fanatic (they exist in this country) argues that voluntary euthenasia is immoral, while person X is dying in the critical stages of cancer and really, really wants to simply die. Christian fanatic is morally offended at the idea and is convinced that person X will go to 'Hell', a post-existence tourist destination with undesirable attributes according to its reputation (;)), which he believes would be even worse for person X given that Christian fanatic doesn't think person X will ever get out. While Christian fanatic moralises about the issue, person X is dying rather painfully. Who gets their way, going by your theory? Assuming that only those two are involved in the equation.


Source?
My ego :P Actually, I have yet to see an Hegelian refer to empircal support for his views, whatever they may be.


No, I rely on long-term observation supported by reason.
Your reason. Mine is not dialectical :)


Source?
Uncommon sense :)


In any way, fallacious reasoning as one can't logically induce a rule from a single example of a heat-related behavior of a certain species of a class of animals and apply it to freedom-related behavior of a certain species of a different class.
I have yet to see anything that demonstrates otherwise.


Group identities exist in the mind of individuals.
Yes, but which individuals? The observer or those observed?


Would be so, if nothing would be preserved and.... which stages do your cycles have and how are they defined?
Perhaps cycles was a bad way of putting it. I see action and reaction, but no synthesis.


Perceptions are like arseholes. Everyone has one.
Oh, I have many, and so do you :D


If you want to make philosophical progress, you have to resolve the contradictions of Hegel on a higher level. :P
Except I'm not an Hegelian ;)


In the greater scheme of things survival, in the sense of more likely than not.
And what is it that survives?


If I accept your definition, then it isn't, as I said.
This is an interesting balance. Laws, social customs, and regulations are subordinated towards the ever-changing relation between happiness and the possibilities of pursuing it.


It's like a woman that might have enjoyed the sex when having been raped by the right guy. That would be post actionem consent, and thus the act is not immoral.
Not immoral?


I missed it?
It wasn't much worth missing. In an argument (debate is too kind a word :P) I had with him about anarchism, he put foward Rosseau's idea that man should be forced to be free, and I told him that was a contradiction in terms. I won.


Putative self-defense in due proportion is permissible.
So it's ok to kill innocent people if you think they're guilty of trying to kill you.


The term Capitalism, as I use it, encompasses much more than you described. Above all violation of freedom by a monetary monopoly that leads to interest slavery, illegitimate accumulation of wealth and exploitation.
Monetary monopoly I understand. Exploitation I do not, unless this is related back to a non-gold based money supply. In which case I would say you advocate capitalism as understood by Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard :)

Thorburn
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 02:06 PM
On the point that relativism is incompatible with absolutism. If you say they are compatible, I concede. They are surely compatible because one refers to the criterium or category, while the other to the degree. It's an absolute criterium with (relative) degrees.


And if we limit the ways which people can harm themselves, say, suicide - is that ok? No, because suicide might make them most happy.


Say that a Christian fanatic (they exist in this country) argues that voluntary euthenasia is immoral, while person X is dying in the critical stages of cancer and really, really wants to simply die. Christian fanatic is morally offended at the idea and is convinced that person X will go to 'Hell', a post-existence tourist destination with undesirable attributes according to its reputation (;)), which he believes would be even worse for person X given that Christian fanatic doesn't think person X will ever get out. While Christian fanatic moralises about the issue, person X is dying rather painfully. Who gets their way, going by your theory? Assuming that only those two are involved in the equation. X, obviously.


My ego :P Actually, I have yet to see an Hegelian refer to empircal support for his views, whatever they may be.

Your reason. Mine is not dialectical :) And that's where you are wrong. :P


Uncommon sense :) Exactly. ;)


I have yet to see anything that demonstrates otherwise. Romanian Communism peaking in the 1989 revolution.


Yes, but which individuals? The observer or those observed? Potentially in both.


Perhaps cycles was a bad way of putting it. I see action and reaction, but no synthesis. The synthesis is the result of action and reaction.


Except I'm not an Hegelian ;) I'm actually synthesizing Hegalianism with Utilitarianism here, as you have surely noticed, and am testing my theories. ;)


And what is it that survives? Life. In the wider scale of things the universe realizes itself.


This is an interesting balance. Laws, social customs, and regulations are subordinated towards the ever-changing relation between happiness and the possibilities of pursuing it. Brilliant, isn't it? Now we just have to synthesize the whole thing with Anarcho Neo-Fascism somehow. Oh wait, you don't believe in synthesis. ;)


Not immoral? Indeed.


It wasn't much worth missing. In an argument (debate is too kind a word :P) I had with him about anarchism, he put foward Rosseau's idea that man should be forced to be free, and I told him that was a contradiction in terms. I won. You are lying. Moody never loses, because he manages always to ignore all inconvenient parts. :P

Where can one read this gem?


So it's ok to kill innocent people if you think they're guilty of trying to kill you. In a system that maximizes happiness and minimizes unhappiness, it would have to be putative self-defense in the sense of the word and the measure would have to be proportional (i. e. not creating more unhappiness than necessary): termination of the attack or disablement of the attacker with the mildest means that achieve the end.


Monetary monopoly I understand. Exploitation I do not, unless this is related back to a non-gold based money supply. In which case I would say you advocate capitalism as understood by Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard :) Interest bondage.

Siegfried
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 02:20 PM
Where can one read this gem?

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=3914 :)

Jack
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 12:44 AM
They are surely compatible because one refers to the criterium or category, while the other to the degree. It's an absolute criterium with (relative) degrees.
Sounds like Platonism ;)


No, because suicide might make them most happy.
True.


X, obviously.
But Christian fanatic moraliser™ is very, very sure that he's got a duty according to his invisible, really powerful friend that he must prevent X from killing himself off, and perhaps Christian fanatic moraliser™ belives both will go to hell if he lets it happen.


And that's where you are wrong. :P
Explain. You could concievably turn me into an Hegelian :-O


Exactly. ;)
Common sense is not so common. Hence 'uncommon sense'. :P


Romanian Communism peaking in the 1989 revolution.
Alternatively, Russia's 1991 Revolution. But then, quite a few, if not most, Russians believe they were better off under totalitarian Communism.


Potentially in both.
How does Hegelianism deal with the subject-object distinction, by the way?


The synthesis is the result of action and reaction.
And what makes you think all actions and reactions are working towards a perfect utopian whole?


I'm actually synthesizing Hegalianism with Utilitarianism here, as you have surely noticed, and am testing my theories. ;)
Yes, I have. However, I prefer my neo-Nietzschean outlook because I can account for group identity with it. Can you?


Life. In the wider scale of things the universe realizes itself.
So right now it's a fake? What exactly does that sentance mean?


Brilliant, isn't it? Now we just have to synthesize the whole thing with Anarcho Neo-Fascism somehow. Oh wait, you don't believe in synthesis. ;)
I crossbreed and add concepts, remove elements and do whatever works in order to get Anarcho Neo-Fascism.


Indeed.
Why don't we conduct subtle tests on people to see if they'd react badly to Prozac, and for the vast majority who don't, let's drop it in their food or something?


You are lying. Moody never loses, because he manages always to ignore all inconvenient parts. :P
True. I confess. I lied. No, wait - I STILL WON! HE'S A SORE LOSER!!!


Where can one read this gem?
Siegfried provided the link.


In a system that maximizes happiness and minimizes unhappiness, it would have to be putative self-defense in the sense of the word and the measure would have to be proportional (i. e. not creating more unhappiness than necessary): termination of the attack or disablement of the attacker with the mildest means that achieve the end.
Supposing these conspirators made the majority - oh, right, then they can have their way :P Tell me where the absolute moral rules come from again? Oh, arbitrary happiness based on the majority...


Interest bondage.
Which people voluntarily sign into. Does that really count as 'slavery' then?

Thorburn
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 02:53 AM
Sounds like Platonism ;) All philosophy is but footnotes to Plato, and all philosophy that is not dialectic is not a philosophy but a sophism. Prostitution, in other words. :P


But Christian fanatic moraliser™ is very, very sure that he's got a duty according to his invisible, really powerful friend that he must prevent X from killing himself off, and perhaps Christian fanatic moraliser™ belives both will go to hell if he lets it happen. So is drug prohibition hypocrite™ and he is wrong. :)


Explain. You could concievably turn me into an Hegelian :-O Another topic.


Alternatively, Russia's 1991 Revolution. But then, quite a few, if not most, Russians believe they were better off under totalitarian Communism. It exists but doesn't have reality. Lack of consciousness.

How is sheep™ educated that totalitarianism is wrong? Rape his daughter, kill his wife, burn down his house, send him to the gulag for 20 years, then ask him again.

How is drug prohibition hypocrite™ convinced that prohibition is wrong? Once his kid gets addicted to drugs. Then ask him what he wants. Keep his child healthy, legal, alive, socially integrated, able to continue its studies and to hold down a job, until it grows tired of drugs or kicks the habit due to medical, psychological, or social assistance? Or fuck up its life, health and existence with prison, criminal records, job loss, loss of shelter, rape, underworld, violence, mental and physical degradation, lack of nutrition, lack of medical assistance, poisoning, prostitution, disease, aids, death.

They all get it once it affects them. Example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2002026.stm

Most people don't care much about anything that doesn't affect their lives personally. Some people do, namely those with more brain, a higher education, and a higher degree of selflessness.

So, for progress to happen, you need injustice and suffering on a large scale, sufficient that it becomes an 'issue'. It must either affect the powerful or a large number of people latently threatening their power.

This is simply not the case with the European hate speech laws, and albeit I can make you a coherrent case that they are idiotic to the core, they will last for quite some time still to come. Why? Because not enough injustice is created for those that could change them to care. They protect the powerful, and, in Germany for example, affect only 10,000+ people directly each year. Many cases are dropped, and almost everyone else gets a monetary fine or a suspended sentence. There are only a handful of cases where people have go to jail for a more extended period of time. So people don't care, most don't even know that they exist, and those that do don't understand them... it doesn't affect them, plain and simple.

Take Nazism on the other hand. There has been lots of injustice and suffering created by National-Socialism in Germany and beyond it. Everything from concentration camps, arbitrary arrests, protective custody without the right to appeal, Gestapo, SD, torture, disproportional punishments, Einsatzgruppen, the World War, Germany bombed into pieces, millions of people dying and crippled, rape, murder, genocide, expulsions, and so on, and this all on a massive scale.

There are not that many people alive anymore that lived during this time as adults, but there exists a huge anti-Nazism consciousness in Germany nonetheless. A consciousness of injustice. It's ever-present and all-penetrating. Now one can argue that it has not all been Nazism's fault. Sure. That there has been reeducation. Sure. That it is exploited for political aims. Sure. All granted. But the basic fact remains that there has been a huge amount of injustice created, and most of it is at least somehow linked to National-Socialism, totalitarianism, and its policies. Most of it has either been system-immanent or is potentially system-immanent.

This consciousness has been constitutionally and legally preserved, and there is, in addition, as I have mentioned, still this active, vigorous consciousness in almost every German. And that's why National-Socialism is finished and will not rise again in the next generations to come.

Eventually, this active consciousness against Nazism will vanish and become insignificant. In hundreds of years, hardly anyone will care anymore about WW2, not more than people care now about the Thirty Year War which depopulated half of Germany. However, a general consciousness against totalitarianism and injustice will still exist, and these experiences of injustice will still be preserved in the constitution and in laws.

Evolved constitutions, in general, contain much more wisdom than the average person that is subjected to it possesses, in particular as far as the constitutional principles are concerned.

What about revolutions? For a revolution to happen, you need to have a lot of injustice that must affect a lot of people. Consequently, the more evolved and progressive a constitution is, and the more past experiences of injustice it preserves and thus avoids, and the higher the consciousness of the population is, the less likely is a revolution to happen.

If it happens, the new constitutions and laws will contain the consciousness of the revolutionaries. This can be extraordinarily progressive for this time (take the U.S. constitution), or extraordinarily regressive for this time (take the USSR), or it can be something inbetween (take NS Germany; good principles discarded, good principles added).

They always draw at least some principles from the past, however, and typically many, because their consciousness, too, has been formed by past experiences of injustice, by the consciousness that still exists in the people, so there is always something preserved. And that's why it's finally all self-fulfilling. If injustice gets too bad, constitutions will be revolutionary or evolutionary reformed, containing ever more justice and freedom on the long run.

In our times, consciousness has become globally propagated. It can't be reversed anymore, not on the long run. Even if we managed to nuke the planet and everything that has ever been written or preserved, there would still be consciousness and education left in the survivors. In the worst case scenario, with only Kaspar Hauser and his wife surviving, we have to start all over again, but as long as there are men they will follow their nature, which is freedom, by the acts of pursuing happiness.


How does Hegelianism deal with the subject-object distinction, by the way? http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slsubjec.htm#SL193


And what makes you think all actions and reactions are working towards a perfect utopian whole? All things follow their potential.


Yes, I have. However, I prefer my neo-Nietzschean outlook because I can account for group identity with it. Can you? Yes. But what would we need Nietzsche for in the field of metaphysic of morals?

So right now it's a fake? What exactly does that sentance mean? It means it becomes what it contains as potential.


I crossbreed and add concepts, remove elements and do whatever works in order to get Anarcho Neo-Fascism. Why not preserve what makes sense, discard what doesn't, and see what comes out?


Why don't we conduct subtle tests on people to see if they'd react badly to Prozac, and for the vast majority who don't, let's drop it in their food or something? Because our tests might be wrong, and it also gives a precedent that such conduct is permissible, opening the doors to hell for all sorts of abuse in future.


Supposing these conspirators made the majority - oh, right, then they can have their way :P Tell me where the absolute moral rules come from again? Oh, arbitrary happiness based on the majority... Not necessarily the majority.


Which people voluntarily sign into. Does that really count as 'slavery' then? In fact, they don't. They don't have a reasonable alternative, as the monetary system is enforced by tyrannts as a monopoly.

Jack
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 01:16 AM
All philosophy is but footnotes to Plato, and all philosophy that is not dialectic is not a philosophy but a sophism. Prostitution, in other words. :PSolipsism?


So is drug prohibition hypocrite™ and he is wrong. :)How do you know he's wrong?


Another topic.http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=228733#post228733


It exists but doesn't have reality. Lack of consciousness.How is the universe supposed to become conscious of itself? Are we identified with the universe? Oh, silly question... Hegelian idealism :(


How is sheep™ educated that totalitarianism is wrong? Rape his daughter, kill his wife, burn down his house, send him to the gulag for 20 years, then ask him again.That's how he learns pain is wrong. Not totalitarianism. Drug him up and deny him freedom of speech and he may be the happiest creature on the planet. See Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.


How is drug prohibition hypocrite™ convinced that prohibition is wrong? Once his kid gets addicted to drugs. Then ask him what he wants. Keep his child healthy, legal, alive, socially integrated, able to continue its studies and to hold down a job, until it grows tired of drugs or kicks the habit due to medical, psychological, or social assistance? Or fuck up its life, health and existence with prison, criminal records, job loss, loss of shelter, rape, underworld, violence, mental and physical degradation, lack of nutrition, lack of medical assistance, poisoning, prostitution, disease, aids, death.

They all get it once it affects them. Example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2002026.stmAlternatively, he'll do what he can to get his kids off drugs, which is what the vast majority of parents in my country do in that situation.


Most people don't care much about anything that doesn't affect their lives personally. Some people do, namely those with more brain, a higher education, and a higher degree of selflessness.How can anyone be selfless? A selfless action is the same as a 'disinterested action', correct? So how can you do anything you don't have a direct or indirect interest in?


So, for progress to happen, you need injustice and suffering on a large scale, sufficient that it becomes an 'issue'. It must either affect the powerful or a large number of people latently threatening their power.Wir lieben dem Schmerz ;)


This is simply not the case with the European hate speech laws, and albeit I can make you a coherrent case that they are idiotic to the core, they will last for quite some time still to come. Why? Because not enough injustice is created for those that could change them to care. They protect the powerful, and, in Germany for example, affect only 10,000+ people directly each year. Many cases are dropped, and almost everyone else gets a monetary fine or a suspended sentence. There are only a handful of cases where people have go to jail for a more extended period of time. So people don't care, most don't even know that they exist, and those that do don't understand them... it doesn't affect them, plain and simple.Ok.


Take Nazism on the other hand. There has been lots of injustice and suffering created by National-Socialism in Germany and beyond it. Everything from concentration camps, arbitrary arrests, protective custody without the right to appeal, Gestapo, SD, torture, disproportional punishments, Einsatzgruppen, the World War, Germany bombed into pieces, millions of people dying and crippled, rape, murder, genocide, expulsions, and so on, and this all on a massive scale.

There are not that many people alive anymore that lived during this time as adults, but there exists a huge anti-Nazism consciousness in Germany nonetheless. A consciousness of injustice. It's ever-present and all-penetrating. Now one can argue that it has not all been Nazism's fault. Sure. That there has been reeducation. Sure. That it is exploited for political aims. Sure. All granted. But the basic fact remains that there has been a huge amount of injustice created, and most of it is at least somehow linked to National-Socialism, totalitarianism, and its policies. Most of it has either been system-immanent or is potentially system-immanent.System immanent? Could you explain this term?


This consciousness has been constitutionally and legally preserved, and there is, in addition, as I have mentioned, still this active, vigorous consciousness in almost every German. And that's why National-Socialism is finished and will not rise again in the next generations to come.

Eventually, this active consciousness against Nazism will vanish and become insignificant. In hundreds of years, hardly anyone will care anymore about WW2, not more than people care now about the Thirty Year War which depopulated half of Germany. However, a general consciousness against totalitarianism and injustice will still exist, and these experiences of injustice will still be preserved in the constitution and in laws.

Evolved constitutions, in general, contain much more wisdom than the average person that is subjected to it possesses, in particular as far as the constitutional principles are concerned.

What about revolutions? For a revolution to happen, you need to have a lot of injustice that must affect a lot of people. Consequently, the more evolved and progressive a constitution is, and the more past experiences of injustice it preserves and thus avoids, and the higher the consciousness of the population is, the less likely is a revolution to happen.

If it happens, the new constitutions and laws will contain the consciousness of the revolutionaries. This can be extraordinarily progressive for this time (take the U.S. constitution), or extraordinarily regressive for this time (take the USSR), or it can be something inbetween (take NS Germany; good principles discarded, good principles added).

They always draw at least some principles from the past, however, and typically many, because their consciousness, too, has been formed by past experiences of injustice, by the consciousness that still exists in the people, so there is always something preserved. And that's why it's finally all self-fulfilling. If injustice gets too bad, constitutions will be revolutionary or evolutionary reformed, containing ever more justice and freedom on the long run.

In our times, consciousness has become globally propagated. It can't be reversed anymore, not on the long run. Even if we managed to nuke the planet and everything that has ever been written or preserved, there would still be consciousness and education left in the survivors. In the worst case scenario, with only Kaspar Hauser and his wife surviving, we have to start all over again, but as long as there are men they will follow their nature, which is freedom, by the acts of pursuing happiness.I would agree with that, if I agreed with teleology. But I don't.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slsubjec.htm#SL193
At some point I will have finished reading this. Right now I need to A) save it to my favourites, B) recover from last night's bourbon, C) try remembering that brunette girl's home phone number, D) study because I have to go to Canberra for Officer Selection Board tomorrow :)


All things follow their potential.Man can do just about anything concievable. Why does he do what he does? What motivates him to pursue happiness?


Yes. But what would we need Nietzsche for in the field of metaphysic of morals?
It means it becomes what it contains as potential.Not so much morals as power analysis. From that, plus my triad of will-desire-power I can explain group identity and a variety of other things. Including human action.


Why not preserve what makes sense, discard what doesn't, and see what comes out?


Because our tests might be wrong, and it also gives a precedent that such conduct is permissible, opening the doors to hell for all sorts of abuse in future.This is interesting. But coherant.


Not necessarily the majority.'The greatest happiness for the greatest number' is the morality of Utilitarianism, last I read. Why not the majority?


In fact, they don't. They don't have a reasonable alternative, as the monetary system is enforced by tyrannts as a monopoly.No one's stopping them from using cows or anything else as currency, it just isn't recognised in the courts of the system. Bartering is still legal, that's what currency was derived from - a substance that could be bartered for anything else.

OraclePhilosophy
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 02:54 AM
Absolutism can describe things such as existence, life and death these things are all absolute.

Also during the existence of time in the known ages what was absolute then changed to somthing else making the ideas of absolutism in the past irrelevant now to those of us in the future.


Moral- a : the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b : a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
2 : plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct.


Relativism- 1 a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them .



I chose Moral Relativism because there is only so much the human mind is to grasp of the universe and our natural surroundings. To put it bluntly we were not made to know everything. Though as I state before some things are Absolute like death, life, existence and such.


Absolutism- 2 : advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles .
3 : an absolute standard or principle .

Jack
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 05:13 AM
Absolutism can describe things such as existence, life and death these things are all absolute.
Life is constant change, it is a process. Death is a name :P

OraclePhilosophy
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 05:33 AM
Perhaps I shall refine what I said or try.

On the matters of life, existence, and death this is what I meant.

On life I meant that right now you are granted life you are your own entity in the physical realm so right now I could say I live and right now that is absolute.

On existence right now , in the time and space and a whole bunch of other attributes that too is absolute.

On death knowing that we as human beings can not live forever knowing that we shall die , meaning death . Death is a absolute thing that occurs in everyones life.

As for your death is only a title I suppose I could say dreams are a title they don't exist or the sky is only a description but hey the sky doesn't exist.

Where are you going with this?:)

OraclePhilosophy
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 05:34 AM
For common record death exist and so do the sky and dreams. :D

Jack
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:31 AM
Perhaps I shall refine what I said or try.
Define all you'd like, language is most interesting :)


On the matters of life, existence, and death this is what I meant.

On life I meant that right now you are granted life you are your own entity in the physical realm so right now I could say I live and right now that is absolute.
'Granted life' implies a giver. I have yet to see evidence there is a Santa Clause who gives out lives. I am constructed out of various strains of genetic, linguistic, cultural and political affects. There is not even an 'I', merely a bio-chemical flow inside an ever changing skull. And of course, it's only really a skull because we percieve something, forget about some differences, reduce those differences to the same and abstract from this a concept, which we then signify in a mark of writing which looks something like 'skull'. ;)


On existence right now , in the time and space and a whole bunch of other attributes that too is absolute.
In what sense is either time or space absolute? Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics...


On death knowing that we as human beings can not live forever knowing that we shall die , meaning death. Death is a absolute thing that occurs in everyones life.
It is the change of the bio-chemical mesh into something else. Not death, only change.


As for your death is only a title I suppose I could say dreams are a title they don't exist or the sky is only a description but hey the sky doesn't exist.
Tell me what you mean by the sky. Show it to me. Be sure that we're both seeing exactly the same thing. Describe it to me, and be sure that the words you are using signify the same thing to you that they do to me ;)


Where are you going with this?:)
Everywhere and nowhere ;)

Racial Philosopher
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:08 PM
Superior (Man/Nation/Race)

-Self-Sufficient/Independent: eg: Does not need the latter

-Creative Intelligence: eg: Creating "something" out of "nothing"





Inferior (Man/Nation/Race)

-Always Dependent

-Manipulative Intelligence: eg: Manipulating what already exists







God can punish Humanity just by being absent - Devil cannot

OraclePhilosophy
Sunday, November 21st, 2004, 02:22 AM
To Jack The Ripper.


You said in death there is change and not absolute if I am understanding you correctly.

We are all going to die and with that comes death , that right there is very absolute because there is yet of today no means to conquer death. You said with death there will come change , I am inclined to agree . The problem is what change for noone has come back to tell us of what after death is like or is there even a change at all for that matter.


In death our bodies wither away and the body decomposes I guess that would consider for physical change however I am more interested in the change of soul.

You want to know my definition of sky it is that big blue gaze above us neverending around the world. It is between us and space and certain gravity keeps us on the ground. It is that thing with clouds and the sun. Sometimes rain and snow comes down from here.

That is my thinking of the sky or did your version be somthing else?:)

OraclePhilosophy
Sunday, November 21st, 2004, 02:27 AM
To jack The Ripper , part II



The I exist thing is I am my own self there for I exist. I think therefore I am.
There is no two individuals who are the same another interesting thing. You are right we are made of bio-chemicals , and of our own political , social , cultural aspects I do agree. :)



On the existence of time and space , yes it is absolute for if it was not nothing would exist now.

Jack
Wednesday, November 24th, 2004, 02:24 AM
You said in death there is change and not absolute if I am understanding you correctly.You understand incorrectly. I meant that death is a label we put place across change itself.



We are all going to die and with that comes death , that right there is very absolute because there is yet of today no means to conquer death.Death is not an existent, it is a designation we use to refer to a stage - a stage which we ourselves arbitrarily delineate and form into a singularity. Christians, and before that, Heathens, believed that death was nothing more than a process in which something we might call 'the soul' transferred from this dimension to another, leaving the corporeal body to decompose. Aristotle termed this De anima, or the animator, aka the soul.


You said with death there will come change , I am inclined to agree .Change simply is. The world we exist in is active becoming. Out of this we reduce the process of becoming to comprehenisble levels via our nervous system - Aldous Huxley writes about this in Doors of Perception - and then designate relatively stable points, and then claim 'these points change'. For example, we see various forms of becoming in what we term a tree - becoming green, becoming brown, becoming larger, etc. and then turn these becomings into entities, like leaves (becoming-green), wood (becoming-brown) and the 'tree' itself (becoming larger). By synthesising these streams of active becoming, we form entities. You subscribe to a conceptual singularity called death, which I dispute and say that it does not exist.


The problem is what change for noone has come back to tell us of what after death is like or is there even a change at all for that matter.
Of course there is a change. The biochemical process known as the brain decays and the rest of the body does as well. See Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain by Antonio R. Damasio (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380726475/qid=1101261716/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-8360348-4434346?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).


You want to know my definition of sky it is that big blue gaze above us neverending around the world.Does the sky include the moon, the planets, comets etc? At what point do you distinguish the sky from 'outer space'? Given that most people say 'the clouds are in the sky', and clouds are little more than cold, condensed water, and the sky undoubtedly contains doses of moisture, at what point can you say 'the clouds are in the sky' and the 'there are no clouds in the sky'? What is the essence of the cloud that distinguishes it from the sky in which it lies?


It is between us and space and certain gravity keeps us on the ground.There is a massive amount of empty space between the molecules that form your organic processes. Shall we say that you are largely empty space? What is this 'us' and how do we distinguish it from 'space'?


It is that thing with clouds and the sun. Sometimes rain and snow comes down from here.You've mentioned the sky, and then space, and while most would say that the sun is situated in space, and is the nexus of our solar system, you would have it placed with the clouds, from which it is further away than the clouds are from us. Why?


That is my thinking of the sky or did your version be somthing else?:)I do philosophy ;)


The I exist thing is I am my own self there for I exist. I think therefore I am.How can you think, then, about yourself if you are it? How is self-reflection possible, if this self is a being?


There is no two individuals who are the same another interesting thing.I use the term 'individual' occasionally in place of 'agent'. There are no individual humans as such.


You are right we are made of bio-chemicals , and of our own political , social , cultural aspects I do agree. :) Of course I am. Except not aspects, because an aspect implies an attribute of a being, and beings do not change.


On the existence of time and space , yes it is absolute for if it was not nothing would exist now. 'Time' and 'space' have been experienced differently by different Cultures. Oswald Spengler outlines this quite well in his Decline of the West, Volume 1. In what sense are time and space considered 'absolute'?

Awar
Wednesday, November 24th, 2004, 03:38 AM
Anyway, I skipped the long discussion, to tell my view on it.
If it coincides with someone else's, I'm sorry. If I say something original, I demand copyrights. :)

I voted for Moral Relativism. Not because I believe it's the way it should be, or because it's some major guideline in my life. I voted simply because I think this is the way things ( currently ) are.

Even in an all-natural world, circumstances change, sometimes drastically.
A human being is not the end-all be-all, there are many other species, probably many other life-forms in the universe(s). What we achieve today, tomorrow may be gone.

In reality, only we matter to us, so...

The 'chaos' exists, and from it, man ( we ) appeared. We try to make sense and order, with our chaotic little minds, born also from chaos. With the hope of something better that awaits us, with our view clouded by the unknown storms of the future, we hope for something. Some sort of justice for behaving in a certain way. This changed through the ages, and it will continue to change.

So, we hope we have some magical formula for morals that will earn us the prize.
The prize's shape and function change as human understanding changes.
But, ultimately, we know that we don't know.

If we set a certain goal for ourselves in the future, then, for a relatively brief period,
there will exist an absolute moral, but, then after eons, this goal becomes sometimes more distant, sometimes closer, but always out of our grasp.

We have some of these goals imprinted in our DNA, but, given a long enough time,
these too change. Self-indulgence through evolution may again turn into a hive-mind,
and back again to the goal of self-fulfilment.

The problem with not knowing future in advance is that we never know if perhaps
the striving for self-fulfillment, or perhaps that of a hive-mind will ultimately destroy our entire species, or perhaps, through some futuristic contraption, destroy or disable all life.

But, even with knowing future, and knowing how to advance without error, there comes another unknown point. Why all that? Gazing into the future which never ends, with the goal of survival? I'm sure that someone who could see exactly into the future for the next billion years wouldn't have much joy out of life, or perhaps would see no point in just surviving. Or perhaps, it's just our mindset of this eon, and in some future incarnation of humanity ( or life itself ), someone will be able to fully understand infinity.

That's why I believe that morals are ultimately relative.
We can just see a short portion of time, through the help of history
and intelligence we can look a bit into the past, and think a bit ahead,
but, believing in something absolute ( at least 'more absolute' than a recurring event ),
is just fooling ourselves. I hope it isn't.

Perhaps the universe expands from a big-bang, and then after some ( incredibly long to us ) time it shrinks into a pinhead again, and then explodes again, and perhaps it's the goal of life to evolve and become able to go outside this recurring event, or maybe it's the goal of life to evolve and produce a way to cause universe to shrink again into a pinhead, and explode, and thus renew it.

We'll never really know ( probably ;)). It's just too grand a scale for our little brains.
On the other hand, I view nature as a sort of 'temporary morals', something which is the only ( however unstable ) guideline we have ( for the time being ) :D

Thorburn
Wednesday, November 24th, 2004, 04:19 AM
Solipsism? Sophism.


How do you know he's wrong? Because observation and reason prove him wrong.


How is the universe supposed to become conscious of itself? Through its self-realization. It is already conscious of itself.


That's how he learns pain is wrong. Unhappiness in general. Glad you cede to my premise.


Not totalitarianism. Drug him up and deny him freedom of speech and he may be the happiest creature on the planet. See Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Freedom is also not the last criterium of morality. Never claimed otherwise. However, will he be happier on this non-existant drug with or without the right to freedom of speech? With or without the insecurity of being tortured, imprisoned, shot, or deprived of this drug if he says something wrong -- drug-induced or not? Concrete freedom (the one that doesn't violate the freedom of others) potentially only adds happiness, never decreases it, and that's why it should be maximized.


Alternatively, he'll do what he can to get his kids off drugs, which is what the vast majority of parents in my country do in that situation. It's not an alternative. It's a legitimate choice to deal with an issue. Question in this case would merely be what should happen during this effort which typically is long-lasting and frequently subject to failure. This parent would have preferred his child to stay legal, socially integrated, healthy and alive while the issue is tackled, like every reasonable, concerned parent or human being would.


How can anyone be selfless? A selfless action is the same as a 'disinterested action', correct? So how can you do anything you don't have a direct or indirect interest in? Different topic. Surely, your position can be well-argued, but even then there would be different categories of motivation. I used the term in its common understanding, namely making someone else the primary, direct benefactor of an action.


System immanent? Could you explain this term? Where power is not limited, there is a potential of unlimited abuse of power.


At some point I will have finished reading this. Right now I need to A) save it to my favourites, B) recover from last night's bourbon, C) try remembering that brunette girl's home phone number, D) study because I have to go to Canberra for Officer Selection Board tomorrow :) C, B, A, D -- or what was your priority order? ;)


Man can do just about anything concievable. Why does he do what he does? What motivates him to pursue happiness? Biology.


Not so much morals as power analysis. From that, plus my triad of will-desire-power I can explain group identity and a variety of other things. Including human action. Explain them?


'The greatest happiness for the greatest number' is the morality of Utilitarianism, last I read. Why not the majority? Because net happiness is to be maximized and happiness comes in degrees. It's not about more happiness for the majority. An action that would make 49% of the affected extremely unhappy and 51% insignificantly more happy would be immoral.


No one's stopping them from using cows or anything else as currency, it just isn't recognised in the courts of the system. Bartering is still legal, that's what currency was derived from - a substance that could be bartered for anything else. There is an effective money monopoly of state banks or private banks, depending on the country, enforced by federal and international laws. No competition is possible.

OraclePhilosophy
Wednesday, November 24th, 2004, 06:44 AM
To Jack The Ripper


To whether death is a label of change it is sill absolute for we all shall expirience it.:)

On the basis of death it is a existent for we see the existence of it every day call it change call it what you will it exist.

Jack The Ripper- You subscribe to a conceptual singularity called death, which I dispute and say does not exist.

I ask you why?


You discussed the changes of the body through death my comment on we do not know what death is for noone has come back to tell was merely my thinking of the soul and not the body. I know how the body decomposes and it's physical change , I am however much more interested in the change of the soul and inner being .

I should of rephrased that better :) sorry.


I distinguish the sky from what I see in it , and later when I referred to the sun I merely was meaning I see it through the sky . The sun in reality is in outer space. I tend to describe such things I see.

To get technical the sky is the atmosphere in which gravity dwells that is the seperation of atmosphere and space. Clouds being formed by the this same atmosphere as well. The sun being out of the Earth's atmosphere in space as we all know.

When I was talking of the sky I was merely describing from a visual perspective not in technical terms that you replied me in.

Does the sky include the moon, comets ect? - Jack the Ripper

I say no because those are outside of the atomosphere this is probally a question of the sun comment I made and again I shall say I was merely making a visual non technical description.


What is the essence of the cloud that distinguishes it from the sky in which it lies? - Jack the Ripper


I would say basically sky is a crude way of saying atmosphere in which clouds are part of the atmosphere and is in it and that is their essence.


What is this us and how do we distinguish it from space- Jack the Ripper

The us is humankind and life itself on earth with certain gravity elements we stay on the ground , common physics what goes up must go down. That is gravity which keeps us down seperates the atmosphere from space.

On my discussion of the self I exist think, walk, talk and breathe I am my own individual , there are those who would make a case against individuality and yet in psychology everyone knows every person has their own behavioral traits. If people have their own behavioral traits and Individuality just another trait of behavior why debate this?


My own quote: On the existence of time and space, yes it is absolute for if it was not nothing would exist now.

Jack The Ripper- Time and space have been expirienced differently by different cultures . Oswald Spengler outlines this quite well in his decline of the west, Volume 1. In what sense are time and space considered ' absolute'.?

On what I was saying was beyond culture I was talking of universal principles existence as a whole. The universe is absolute in this cosmo and to the next and time is eternity.

I am sorry I am terrible at explaining things I am new to this Skadi forum in which since I have been here I like very much , you must forgive I don't talk much to anybody and what I have to think usually floats around in my head to myself.

In knowing this know it is hard for me talking to others , me and my non-social self .:)

Jack
Thursday, November 25th, 2004, 03:18 AM
To Jack The Ripper

To whether death is a label of change it is sill absolute for we all shall expirience it.:)
That doesn't make it absolute. That makes it relative to the chronological time-span a form of becoming has before it becomes something else.


On the basis of death it is a existent for we see the existence of it every day call it change call it what you will it exist.
We witness a change which shows the birth, growth, aging and decay of a series of becomings which we have linked together under the concept of 'life' or 'human' or 'animal'.


Jack The Ripper- You subscribe to a conceptual singularity called death, which I dispute and say does not exist.

I ask you why?
Sure.


You discussed the changes of the body through death my comment on we do not know what death is for noone has come back to tell was merely my thinking of the soul and not the body.
There is no proof that this 'soul' exists. It is a useful fiction.


I know how the body decomposes and it's physical change , I am however much more interested in the change of the soul and inner being .

I should of rephrased that better :) sorry.
No problem. There is still no evidence for your 'soul'.


I distinguish the sky from what I see in it , and later when I referred to the sun I merely was meaning I see it through the sky . The sun in reality is in outer space. I tend to describe such things I see.
Most people do describe what they see. That's ok. It's only common sense.


To get technical the sky is the atmosphere in which gravity dwells that is the seperation of atmosphere and space. Clouds being formed by the this same atmosphere as well. The sun being out of the Earth's atmosphere in space as we all know.
Gravity dwells everywhere. It is how the planets revolve, it is a field of energy. It the process by which I weigh 68kg. The atmosphere is a series of gradiations, it has no beginning or end, only a 'center', and no essence either - this 'essence' is a concept that we use for the sake of practicality. Which doesn't make it correct.


When I was talking of the sky I was merely describing from a visual perspective not in technical terms that you replied me in.[quote]

I know.

[quote]Does the sky include the moon, comets ect? - Jack the Ripper

I say no because those are outside of the atomosphere this is probally a question of the sun comment I made and again I shall say I was merely making a visual non technical description.
I know this. What seperates the technical or scientific perspective from the philosophical perspective?


What is the essence of the cloud that distinguishes it from the sky in which it lies? - Jack the Ripper

I would say basically sky is a crude way of saying atmosphere in which clouds are part of the atmosphere and is in it and that is their essence.
If participating in the atmosphere is the 'essence' of the cloud, should we then call a satellite in the atmosphere a cloud also?


What is this us and how do we distinguish it from space- Jack the Ripper

The us is humankind and life itself on earth with certain gravity elements we stay on the ground , common physics what goes up must go down. That is gravity which keeps us down seperates the atmosphere from space.
'Man is either a zoological construct or an empty word' - Oswald Spengler. I assume you mean vacuum by space. We contain this ourselves in the gaps between the atoms that constitute our physical becoming.


On my discussion of the self I exist think, walk, talk and breathe I am my own individual , there are those who would make a case against individuality and yet in psychology everyone knows every person has their own behavioral traits. If people have their own behavioral traits and Individuality just another trait of behavior why debate this?
Psychology is hardly a genuine science. The 'person' is an intensive singularity. It alters with the modification of its 'elements'. Hence there is no 'person' as such, only psychological becoming.


My own quote: On the existence of time and space, yes it is absolute for if it was not nothing would exist now.

Jack The Ripper- Time and space have been expirienced differently by different cultures . Oswald Spengler outlines this quite well in his decline of the west, Volume 1. In what sense are time and space considered ' absolute'.?

On what I was saying was beyond culture I was talking of universal principles existence as a whole. The universe is absolute in this cosmo and to the next and time is eternity.
The universe is the sum of all becoming. It is inseperable from time and space, and Einstein demonstrated their interdependency.


I am sorry I am terrible at explaining things I am new to this Skadi forum in which since I have been here I like very much , you must forgive I don't talk much to anybody and what I have to think usually floats around in my head to myself.
Don't apologise, I never did :D If you lack a 'normal' social life I wouldn't worry about it or throw you in a psycho-prison.


In knowing this know it is hard for me talking to others , me and my non-social self .:)
You have just refuted yourself, and put a contrast between 'you' and 'yourself', dissolving the idea of the unified individual. Good job ;)

Jack
Sunday, November 28th, 2004, 01:48 PM
Sophism.Elaborate.


Because observation and reason prove him wrong.Note to self: Buy Critique of Dialectical Reason by Sartre.


Through its self-realization. It is already conscious of itself.I can partly agree on Hegelian synthesis. This universal teleological 'self-realization' thing is what I object to. I'm not sure why yet, but probably because it sounds stupid.


Unhappiness in general. Glad you cede to my premise.Sure.


Freedom is also not the last criterium of morality. Never claimed otherwise. However, will he be happier on this non-existant drug with or without the right to freedom of speech? With or without the insecurity of being tortured, imprisoned, shot, or deprived of this drug if he says something wrong -- drug-induced or not? Concrete freedom (the one that doesn't violate the freedom of others) potentially only adds happiness, never decreases it, and that's why it should be maximized.
The sad thing is, I actually am becoming an Anarchist of some variety again...


It's not an alternative. It's a legitimate choice to deal with an issue. Question in this case would merely be what should happen during this effort which typically is long-lasting and frequently subject to failure. This parent would have preferred his child to stay legal, socially integrated, healthy and alive while the issue is tackled, like every reasonable, concerned parent or human being would.
Generally agreed. People are stupid though.


Different topic. Surely, your position can be well-argued, but even then there would be different categories of motivation. I used the term in its common understanding, namely making someone else the primary, direct benefactor of an action.I'm well and truly convince that my position on that topic is absolutely bulletproof. It's also the key to Anarcho Neo Fascism.


Where power is not limited, there is a potential of unlimited abuse of power.


C, B, A, D -- or what was your priority order? ;)That pretty much fits what's happened... :D


Biology.And happiness does what for an organism?


Explain them?How and why agents act.


Because net happiness is to be maximized and happiness comes in degrees. It's not about more happiness for the majority. An action that would make 49% of the affected extremely unhappy and 51% insignificantly more happy would be immoral.And how do you figure out that an action is moral, then?


There is an effective money monopoly of state banks or private banks, depending on the country, enforced by federal and international laws. No competition is possible.So far as I know, it is legal to use whatever one wants to establish a currency (a universally accepted barter resource) in Australia. However, it won't be legally accepted in a court.

Wjatscheslaw
Sunday, September 4th, 2005, 12:48 AM
First point. - Moral RELATIVISM!



1. A simple way to express this view is that "everyone draws their own moral from the same story" and behaves according to their own impression, acceptance, or rejection of it.

2. A moral relativist, on the other hand, would hold that even people in such a circumstance do not follow a common moral code, but are simply unable to follow their varying personal urges due to social pressure.

1. Yes, that's the Reality.
2. Whether moral Relativist have to (in any case) commite a crimes only becouse of being Relativist??? And if they somehow don't behave so this is only becouse of so-called social pressure??
Maybe they (a part of them) have their own code? I believe they do.



1. Moral absolutism has my vote. There are absolute criteria in human affairs, namely happiness (the final purpose of every human action)

2. and freedom (the nature of human beings).

3. Actions are moral if they maximize happiness. To maximize happiness the human nature has to be respected, i. e. freedom shall never be unjustifiably infringed.
1. I do not agree. It is not happines what people seek out. People simply live, something do, make, create. Instincts supervise over them. And the most impotant instinct speaks that everyone should selfexpresse and only therefor we do something...
2. This is just consequence of Might.
3. (If it suppose that everyone seek out happiness) You mean that anything what you only do, would be moral if it maximize a happiness? That's a pure amoralism....

Schmetterling
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017, 12:32 AM
Moral absolutism, and this needs to come back and be enforced at least within our cultures. Muslims who rape for example use the concept of moral relativism, that in their culture it's not wrong to just take what they want from a woman. I think actions which create a victim - rape, murder, torture, etc. are morally questionable and there should be a universal standard against them.

Catterick
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017, 12:45 AM
Moral absolutism, and this needs to come back and be enforced at least within our cultures. Muslims who rape for example use the concept of moral relativism, that in their culture it's not wrong to just take what they want from a woman. I think actions which create a victim - rape, murder, torture, etc. are morally questionable and there should be a universal standard against them.

Islam is not relativistic. If they use such arguments successfully on us, the the fault is our moral relativism. Yet only the liberal form of relativism is weak and susceptible. Mussolini's was not weak nor was Nietzsche's.

Relativism is about the nature of ethics nothing more. Absolutist dispositions, not necessarily philosophies, win out.

Spjabork
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017, 06:39 PM
Relativism is about the nature of ethics nothing more. Absolutist dispositions, not necessarily philosophies, win out.
The dichotomy per se is mistaken. It is not whether a certain 'moral' is absolute, or whether it is relative, instead, the true opposition is between a moral based on true religion, or a 'moral' based on random prejudices, i.e. on nothing.

The modern, 'western', capitalist-liberalist moral is not based on any (true) religion, and that is the reason why it appears 'relative'. Because for modern westerners, there is no higher, i.e. spiritual instance who could once and for all settle any moral issues, hence they are permanently in danger of complete moral breakdown.

A true religion is a set of ample beliefs which tell the human being where he came from before he was born, and where he will go to, after he has died. If -- and only after -- this is made clear, anything else follows easily, and doubts are minimized.

Now, the joo- & negro-whorship, which is tried to spread among westerners, is no real substitute for a true religion, because it fails to tell the westerners where they finally will go after they must say good-bye to all those precious, god-like joos & negros here on earth. Because of this decisive flaw, western moral has no basis, is not 100% convincing to anybody, and -- most of all -- has no fanatical defenders in case of need.

Alice
Friday, March 29th, 2019, 06:18 AM
The moral framework of current Western culture is based on moral relativism, but I don't believe in moral relativism, I believe in objective truth, which is timeless and absolute. Moral relativism is contrary to the moral order.

Skärmträl
Friday, March 29th, 2019, 09:46 AM
The moral framework of current western culture is based on moral relativism

One could make the case, though, that Western culture is based on moral absolutism seeing as the UN is pretty keen on universal human rights and whatnot.

SaxonPagan
Friday, March 29th, 2019, 02:22 PM
The only thing we know for sure is that absolutism has already been tried and failed!

Take look at the few countries where it's still in force today and I can guarantee you wouldn't want to live in any of them.

Moral relativism needs the right conditions in order to function and they certainly aren't provided by 'multicultural' societies, which are a complete disaster. Indeed, all MR appears to be doing in the West right now is paving the way for Islamic absolutism.

Alice
Friday, March 29th, 2019, 03:28 PM
One could make the case, though, that Western culture is based on moral absolutism seeing as the UN is pretty keen on universal human rights and whatnot.

It has become a sort of religion, really. Too bad the notion of human rights has been severed from its original foundation in the idea of natural law. Without any idea of natural law, no one can settle any question of human rights, except by personal opinion.

Sigurdsson
Friday, March 29th, 2019, 03:40 PM
Moral Absolutism

LillyCaterina
Saturday, March 30th, 2019, 01:36 AM
Something is either right or wrong. All the excuses in the world is never going to make something wrong right. :nope

SaxonPagan
Saturday, March 30th, 2019, 01:51 AM
In practice, things are never that simple.

Take the ongoing euthanasia debate, for example, and here on Skadi the 'Polygamy' discussion is 72 pages long!