[quote]Chushin wrote:
Hey, GL – you’re missing a good “Japan guy” thread.
Thanks man, I just saw it. I’ll try to catch up today. 
For me the values stem from purpose and habit. My purpose is my guide, and habit is fuel.
Self-reliance
Loyalty
Knowledge
Interdependence
Balance
Hard selection but if any of the above are out of whack it seriously kills my buzz.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Today I’m taking a little time to contemplate my core values. I’m trying to work it out with myself right now and I thought that getting the input, ideas, and humor from T-Men and T-Vixens might be a good idea.
After writing down my values and trying to narrow them down to 5 core values, I’m not sure I have it right. So far I have (in order of importance):
- Family (including Marriage)
- Discipline
- Education
- Health and Fitness
- Service
It is really hard to narrow these down and cut away things that I also think are important, like: community, compassion, open-mindedness, progress, hope, success, and especially wisdom (although I’m not sure if wisdom is a “value” or just something that comes with time, experience, and/or Grace).
Anyway, I hope this can start a good thread. What do YOU think? What are your core values?
PS Somewhat randomly, I found myself with more time than I had anticipated for the next 3 weeks or so. Having a little extra time, I decided to try to do something more useful than watching “Orange is the New Black” or reading another WEB Griffin book. So I found The Art of Manliness’ “30 Days to a Better Man” series. This task was the first article in the series. I plan to follow this along with Shugart’s “28days, 14 missions”. Anyway, that’s where this is coming from. [/quote]
God
Family
everything else.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I think my core values really boil down to the essence of what Nietzsche termed “master morality” vs. “slave morality”.
I’m into master morality these days. Humility exists in people because it was forced onto them by those who are stronger. Humility then becomes a virtue in those who are forced to be humble because they have no source of pride, not because it is actually moral. My morality derives from results and consequences, not intent. If it is good for me, then it is good. If it is bad for me, then it is bad. If it is useful to society in general it is not necessarily moral. If it is bad for society in general, it is not necessarily immoral. I create my own morality and that which is immoral is simply the opposite of those values. So my core values are whatever advances my own cause, namely myself.
Life is a zero sum game. There are winners and there are losers, and the winners win to the direct detriment to the losers. That’s just the way life is. Not everyone can be a winner since there have to be losers. So that which causes losers to exist and that which perpetuates them is not immoral at all. Rather than find sympathy or show pity for the losers in the world I’d rather do whatever it takes to avoid their plight. Whatever accomplishes this for me is moral and therefore the epitome of my core values.
Of course, tomorrow something really bad will probably happen to me and then I’ll really be into the whole slave morality thing.[/quote]
Nietzsche was an idiot. I can’t stand him as a philosopher. He was flowery, but little on substance. You are not the master of your own destiny, you’re merely a player. The shit you cannot control vastly outweighs the shit you can.
Moral relativism is a myth. Life is not zero sum.
He was just an angry little man.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I think my core values really boil down to the essence of what Nietzsche termed “master morality” vs. “slave morality”.
I’m into master morality these days. Humility exists in people because it was forced onto them by those who are stronger. Humility then becomes a virtue in those who are forced to be humble because they have no source of pride, not because it is actually moral. My morality derives from results and consequences, not intent. If it is good for me, then it is good. If it is bad for me, then it is bad. If it is useful to society in general it is not necessarily moral. If it is bad for society in general, it is not necessarily immoral. I create my own morality and that which is immoral is simply the opposite of those values. So my core values are whatever advances my own cause, namely myself.
Life is a zero sum game. There are winners and there are losers, and the winners win to the direct detriment to the losers. That’s just the way life is. Not everyone can be a winner since there have to be losers. So that which causes losers to exist and that which perpetuates them is not immoral at all. Rather than find sympathy or show pity for the losers in the world I’d rather do whatever it takes to avoid their plight. Whatever accomplishes this for me is moral and therefore the epitome of my core values.
Of course, tomorrow something really bad will probably happen to me and then I’ll really be into the whole slave morality thing.[/quote]
Nietzsche was an idiot. I can’t stand him as a philosopher. He was flowery, but little on substance. You are not the master of your own destiny, you’re merely a player. The shit you cannot control vastly outweighs the shit you can.
Moral relativism is a myth. Life is not zero sum.
He was just an angry little man.[/quote]
Exactly. You don’t “create” your own morality.
Morality exists despite any and all flailing and protestation on your part. You doing whatever the hell it is you want to do does not equal “morality.”
And do you really believe that life is a zero sum game? When I win and my business succeeds, a TON of people succeed with me. If I fold, a TON of people miss the chance to enjoy opportunities that would have never otherwise have been afforded to them. The entirety of the affluent Western world, our poor richer now than the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, are testament to this.
Are you just trolling again, DB?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I think my core values really boil down to the essence of what Nietzsche termed “master morality” vs. “slave morality”.
I’m into master morality these days. Humility exists in people because it was forced onto them by those who are stronger. Humility then becomes a virtue in those who are forced to be humble because they have no source of pride, not because it is actually moral. My morality derives from results and consequences, not intent. If it is good for me, then it is good. If it is bad for me, then it is bad. If it is useful to society in general it is not necessarily moral. If it is bad for society in general, it is not necessarily immoral. I create my own morality and that which is immoral is simply the opposite of those values. So my core values are whatever advances my own cause, namely myself.
Life is a zero sum game. There are winners and there are losers, and the winners win to the direct detriment to the losers. That’s just the way life is. Not everyone can be a winner since there have to be losers. So that which causes losers to exist and that which perpetuates them is not immoral at all. Rather than find sympathy or show pity for the losers in the world I’d rather do whatever it takes to avoid their plight. Whatever accomplishes this for me is moral and therefore the epitome of my core values.
Of course, tomorrow something really bad will probably happen to me and then I’ll really be into the whole slave morality thing.[/quote]
Nietzsche was an idiot. I can’t stand him as a philosopher. He was flowery, but little on substance. You are not the master of your own destiny, you’re merely a player. The shit you cannot control vastly outweighs the shit you can.
Moral relativism is a myth. Life is not zero sum.
He was just an angry little man.[/quote]
Exactly. You don’t “create” your own morality.
Morality exists despite any and all flailing and protestation on your part. You doing whatever the hell it is you want to do does not equal “morality.”
And do you really believe that life is a zero sum game? When I win and my business succeeds, a TON of people succeed with me. If I fold, a TON of people miss the chance to enjoy opportunities that would have never otherwise have been afforded to them. The entirety of the affluent Western world, our poor richer now than the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, are testament to this.
Are you just trolling again, DB? [/quote]
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. You can say what is moral all you want, but I can disagree all I want and neither of us can change that. I think what is moral is what is good for me. Who are you to tell me otherwise? Morality is a human construct and changes all the time. I laugh at the statement that moral relativism is a myth, especially coming from people who place a high degree of morality on the U.S. Constitution. That document is wonderful, but it is also a prime example of men taking what is normative and making it absolute. To me, that is the epitome of moral relativism.
I’m not a huge fan of Nietzsche per se, but I think when it comes to the idea of two kinds of morality, master and slave, he was really onto something. The Homeric idea of what is the ideal man, and therefore the ideal form of morality, is something that has changed drastically in the last 1800 years or so. I think the only TRUE morality that exists is that which proliferates life. In a way, what most would think is moral is a celebration of death, not life. Do animals have a system of morality? Does it exist anywhere in nature except with man? And has it remained completely static all these millennia? No, not at all really. When we’re told that there is virtue in being weak, in being humble, in thinking of others first, in giving up things so that others may have, in turning the other cheek, in things like martyrdom in the case of someone like Thomas More, in sacrifice for the sake of others and so forth, in the idea that life is a prelude to something that occurs after death, we celebrate death at life’s expense. That isn’t to say that the “virtues” I just listed are bad, only that they should not be pursued at the expense of one’s own life.
The only type of morality that has ever existed for sure is that which gives life. Whatever is good for me and my life is moral. Whatever helps me live longer or better or whatever is moral. That’s all that can really be said of the morality system about ANY society or person that values life. Ironically, I think you and Pat are probably prime examples of people who embrace master morality concepts in many areas of your life. But it seems that in many ways we want the best of both systems. We want to be good Christians, for instance, and embrace things like humility and charity and love for others and so forth, but we also want to surround ourselves with the idea of being strong and powerful and noble and the top dog and so forth, all master morality virtues. We choose humility when it suits our needs and we choose aggression when it does as well.
As far as whether or not life is a zero sum game, I think your business’ competitors might have something to say about your example. Perhaps life isn’t a true zero sum game, but it has many, many characteristics of one. For every example you can provide showing that it is not a zero sum game, I can provide one showing that it is.
@Pat and Cortes:
You guys both argue that moral relativism is a myth, meaning that morality is definite and absolute instead. I know that you guys are Christians, and I assume this is the source of what you hold up as absolute morality. Tell me something. How do reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with the right to self-defense? How do you reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with your support of war, any war? Have you ever told a lie in your professional lives that was in pursuance of something good for you, your company, your paycheck, your earning potential, etc? How do reconcile that with “thou shalt not lie”? Has there ever been a time where you knew without a doubt that lying in a particular scenario was not bad at all, not immoral in that specific setting?
Where do you stand on the death penalty? What about assisted suicide? Would it be wrong for the U.S. government to steal technological secrets from other countries if it were to our direct benefit? Is it wrong to covet? Don’t you covet material possessions of various sorts that make your life easier, more comfortable, more bearable, etc? Don’t you covet material possessions that you don’t have that would make your children’s lives easier and more comfortable or simply better? Do you think such pursuits are immoral?
You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. -James 4:2-4
Do you wish to “be a friend of the world”? Is following James’ idea of morality a celebration of life, or does it place higher value on what comes after it, thereby naturally leading to a celebration of death instead?
But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. -1 Timothy 6:6-10
How do you reconcile the above statement, which comes directly out of the Bible (the source of “absolute” morality as handed down to us by God) with pursuit of wealth? Are you against the pursuit of any wealth at all above what you need for basic survival? Is it immoral or wrong to be rich, to pursue being rich in any way, shape or form?
@ Pat:
I know that you support some sort of military intervention in Syria. How do you hold those views and still claim to be a Christian man who ultimately must look to the Bible as the manuscript for what is moral and immoral? Intervention in Syria would lead to death and people being killed by the U.S. Armed Forces. How do believe in what the Ten Commandments say and then support such intervention? The Ten Commandments do not say “thou shalt not kill” and then go on to list all the possible exceptions to that rule. It does not say it is alright to kill a thousand to save ten thousand, either. But I doubt that you would argue that any and all forms of killing people are inherently immoral. Was it immoral to kill Osama bin Laden? Would it have been immoral to kill Hitler? Who decides when killing DOES become moral?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@Pat and Cortes:
You guys both argue that moral relativism is a myth, meaning that morality is definite and absolute instead. I know that you guys are Christians, and I assume this is the source of what you hold up as absolute morality. Tell me something. How do reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with the right to self-defense? How do you reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with your support of war, any war? Have you ever told a lie in your professional lives that was in pursuance of something good for you, your company, your paycheck, your earning potential, etc? How do reconcile that with “thou shalt not lie”? Has there ever been a time where you knew without a doubt that lying in a particular scenario was not bad at all, not immoral in that specific setting?[/quote]
It’s thou shalt not murder, actually. Easily reconcilable as there is no commandment against defending oneself, fighting in war, or the punishment of criminals.
Not all killing is immoral. The Bible never suggests any such thing.
Also, you are talking about Mosaic law, so be careful what you assign to what you believe are Christian moral codes.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@ Pat:
I know that you support some sort of military intervention in Syria. How do you hold those views and still claim to be a Christian man who ultimately must look to the Bible as the manuscript for what is moral and immoral? Intervention in Syria would lead to death and people being killed by the U.S. Armed Forces. How do believe in what the Ten Commandments say and then support such intervention? The Ten Commandments do not say “thou shalt not kill” and then go on to list all the possible exceptions to that rule. It does not say it is alright to kill a thousand to save ten thousand, either. But I doubt that you would argue that any and all forms of killing people are inherently immoral. Was it immoral to kill Osama bin Laden? Would it have been immoral to kill Hitler? Who decides when killing DOES become moral?[/quote]
I’m surprised you know so little about the Bible, apologetics and theological philosophy and history. There is TONS of precedent for everything you are talking about. Tons.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
As far as whether or not life is a zero sum game, I think your business’ competitors might have something to say about your example. Perhaps life isn’t a true zero sum game, but it has many, many characteristics of one. For every example you can provide showing that it is not a zero sum game, I can provide one showing that it is.
[/quote]
You don’t own a business, do you?
My strongest competitor in my town is a lion. Fierce as hell, tireless, and I CONSTANTLY underestimate him. And you know what? I thank God for him every day. Without him, I’d have rested on my laurels and worked at well below my potential for the past six years. However, because he IS so strong, I work FAR harder than I ever would to keep up and I know he is doing the same, and the final result is that BOTH of us are making a LOT more money than we would have otherwise, and a LARGE number of people who would otherwise have not been able to benefit from the excellent service we provide are now able to. That is a win-win-win for us and our community.
Zero sum, like some contrived Biblical absolute proscription on all killing, is a fairy tale.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@Pat and Cortes:
You guys both argue that moral relativism is a myth, meaning that morality is definite and absolute instead. I know that you guys are Christians, and I assume this is the source of what you hold up as absolute morality. Tell me something. How do reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with the right to self-defense? How do you reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with your support of war, any war? Have you ever told a lie in your professional lives that was in pursuance of something good for you, your company, your paycheck, your earning potential, etc? How do reconcile that with “thou shalt not lie”? Has there ever been a time where you knew without a doubt that lying in a particular scenario was not bad at all, not immoral in that specific setting?[/quote]
Gonna regret stepping in what is sure to become a clusterfuck but here goes… As I understand it “Thou shalt not kill” would have been more accurately translated as “Thou shalt not murder”. Killing out of necessity or on the battlefield is not what was was being referred to, much like under our own system of laws.
Similarly there is no Commandment that says “Thou Shalt Not Lie”. It’s actually “Thou Shalt not bear false witness” as in “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit”. Telling someone their butt does not look big in a pair of pants or concealing your intentions from a competitor are not what is being referred to.
I’m not a strictly observant Christian or anything, but at least be accurate.
Quick question for you, DB?
Can the raping of a baby ever, in any situation, be relatively good?
I’m not talking about raping a baby to save 100 babies. I am talking about the act itself.
Can the very act of raping a baby ever, in any situation, be good?
DB,
Regarding equating humility with weakness and subserviance: I completely disagree. Humility is extremely useful. It’s an effective inoculation against overconfidence and complacency, both of which can get you killed both literally and figuratively. Humility allows you to see your where your weaknesses lie, own them and begin to work on them without needing to wrestle with your ego. It allows you to be realistic with yourself because were all flawed and fallible. If pride makes you blind to this, you will be less effective in your life. Nemisis follows hubris and all. That’s not a human construct, it’s a description of a natural process at work that would happen whether or not one believed it would. In fact, it usually DOES happen to people who don’t believe it does.
The harder you push your limits the more likely you are to be exposed to people who are more talented than you, to have failures, setbacks and other “humbling” experiences. If those experiences don’t teach you that you are not perfect, invincible or even that big a deal then you are just not that bright IMO. Some of the most capable, competent people you will ever meet will often be the most humble, especially if their area of competency involves significant physical risk where overestimating your capabilities can have disastrous consequences.
Humility has the added benefit of causing you to tend to under-promise and over-deliver which I find to be extremely useful both in professional and personal settings. The guy who thinks he’s awesome and talks a great game will always come up short more often because reality doesn’t care how great you think you are. This is true so often that in my experience the more a guy talks himself up, the less I actually expect him to accomplish and I am rarely disappointed.
I don’t think humility is an artificial construct thrust upon us by our theoretical “betters” so much as it is the logical and intelligent conclusion to any honest self-assessment.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@Pat and Cortes:
You guys both argue that moral relativism is a myth, meaning that morality is definite and absolute instead. I know that you guys are Christians, and I assume this is the source of what you hold up as absolute morality. Tell me something. How do reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with the right to self-defense? How do you reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with your support of war, any war? Have you ever told a lie in your professional lives that was in pursuance of something good for you, your company, your paycheck, your earning potential, etc? How do reconcile that with “thou shalt not lie”? Has there ever been a time where you knew without a doubt that lying in a particular scenario was not bad at all, not immoral in that specific setting?[/quote]
It’s thou shalt not murder, actually. Easily reconcilable as there is no commandment against defending oneself, fighting in war, or the punishment of criminals.
Not all killing is immoral. The Bible never suggests any such thing.
Also, you are talking about Mosaic law, so be careful what you assign to what you believe are Christian moral codes. [/quote]
The primary prerequisite for murder is that it be an “unlawful” killing. Who decides whether it is unlawful? If codified law is a human construct, and in this case codified law is necessary to define what murder is, and since we consider murder unlawful, is the idea that murder is unlawful not a human construct? It is necessarily so. In the state of nature there is no murder because there is no law. When humans existed before laws it was therefore impossible for murder to exist. If murder is unlawful killing and it could not have existed amongst humans before we had laws, no killing of another person could have been immoral. What if a country or a society had no laws pertaining to the killing of other people? What if murder was not unlawful, thereby not being murder at all?
And what about the other hypotheticals I put forth regarding, covetousness, wealth, lying and stealing?
[quote]batman730 wrote:
DB,
Regarding equating humility with weakness and subserviance: I completely disagree. Humility is extremely useful. It’s an effective inoculation against overconfidence and complacency, both of which can get you killed both literally and figuratively. Humility allows you to see your where your weaknesses lie, own them and begin to work on them without needing to wrestle with your ego. It allows you to be realistic with yourself because were all flawed and fallible. If pride makes you blind to this, you will be less effective in your life. Nemisis follows hubris and all. That’s not a human construct, it’s a description of a natural process at work that would happen whether or not one believed it would. In fact, it usually DOES happen to people who don’t believe it does.
The harder you push your limits the more likely you are to be exposed to people who are more talented than you, to have failures, setbacks and other “humbling” experiences. If those experiences don’t teach you that you are not perfect, invincible or even that big a deal then you are just not that bright IMO. Some of the most capable, competent people you will ever meet will often be the most humble, especially if their area of competency involves significant physical risk where overestimating your capabilities can have disastrous consequences.
Humility has the added benefit of causing you to tend to under-promise and over-deliver which I find to be extremely useful both in professional and personal settings. The guy who thinks he’s awesome and talks a great game will always come up short more often because reality doesn’t care how great you think you are. This is true so often that in my experience the more a guy talks himself up, the less I actually expect him to accomplish and I am rarely disappointed.
I don’t think humility is an artificial construct thrust upon us by our theoretical “betters” so much as it is the logical and intelligent conclusion to any honest self-assessment.[/quote]
All you’ve done is explain why humility is a virtue when it is in our best interests. Sure, humility is a virtue when it is good for me. Again, master morality.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@Pat and Cortes:
You guys both argue that moral relativism is a myth, meaning that morality is definite and absolute instead. I know that you guys are Christians, and I assume this is the source of what you hold up as absolute morality. Tell me something. How do reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with the right to self-defense? How do you reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with your support of war, any war? Have you ever told a lie in your professional lives that was in pursuance of something good for you, your company, your paycheck, your earning potential, etc? How do reconcile that with “thou shalt not lie”? Has there ever been a time where you knew without a doubt that lying in a particular scenario was not bad at all, not immoral in that specific setting?[/quote]
It’s thou shalt not murder, actually. Easily reconcilable as there is no commandment against defending oneself, fighting in war, or the punishment of criminals.
Not all killing is immoral. The Bible never suggests any such thing.
Also, you are talking about Mosaic law, so be careful what you assign to what you believe are Christian moral codes. [/quote]
The primary prerequisite for murder is that it be an “unlawful” killing. Who decides whether it is unlawful? If codified law is a human construct, and in this case codified law is necessary to define what murder is, and since we consider murder unlawful, is the idea that murder is unlawful not a human construct? It is necessarily so. In the state of nature there is no murder because there is no law. When humans existed before laws it was therefore impossible for murder to exist. If murder is unlawful killing and it could not have existed amongst humans before we had laws, no killing of another person could have been immoral. What if a country or a society had no laws pertaining to the killing of other people? What if murder was not unlawful, thereby not being murder at all?
And what about the other hypotheticals I put forth regarding, covetousness, wealth, lying and stealing?[/quote]
Answer my baby rape question. It holds the key to all the rest.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Quick question for you, DB?
Can the raping of a baby ever, in any situation, be relatively good?
I’m not talking about raping a baby to save 100 babies. I am talking about the act itself.
Can the very act of raping a baby ever, in any situation, be good? [/quote]
It would only be “good” for the person sick enough to commit such an act. Of course it is immoral in my mind. But I am the one who determines that. It just so happens that 99.9999999999% of the civilized world would agree with me. But widespread agreement does not make something moral or immoral in an absolute sense. Who is the one high and mighty enough to say that ANYTHING is absolute morality?
What about killing babies? Is that immoral in an absolute sense? What about an animal that eats her young? Is she immoral? Of course not, since she lacks the capacity to even begin to comprehend what is right and wrong. So, does that mean that a sociopath is incapable of moral or immoral action since he, too, is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong?