[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
I can’t think of any moral uses for a ring of invisibility. It lends itself more to immoral activity than moral purposes. The moral choice would be to leave the ring where you found it.
[/quote]
Yeah right and let Gollum have it.[/quote]
LOL! We all know where that got him.
Without an external system of some type…not a god but at least a comprehensible external system from logic or biology, all actions could be construed by the person performing them as moral. There is some common agreement on relatively easy issues of some actions being immoral, but there is more disagreement.
Some people would give passes on theft to feed ones family for example. Others would not saying there are alternatives that they believe to be more moral. Some might feel killing another is imperative to their or their offspring’s survival and would see it as a moral action while others would not.
And those are relatively easy examples.
When you bring up questions of homosexuality for example people’s opinions are going to be all over the board on the morality of these actions. Or drug and alcohol consumption. Or the ownership of property.
If some situation ever arose where humans were better off going at it alone, you can bet your ass polite society would dissolve in a heartbeat. You can see it in 3rd world countries where there is little education and the leaders are all corrupt.
Are the corrupt leaders really better off for being corrupt?
I think the reason why we have leaders, governments, and rules is because we do need them. Not necessarily because all of us would turn on each other but it would only take a few nasty situations with a few nasty people for people to develop a “shoot first ask questions later” attitude especially if there were no consequences for the nasty behavior. We need/have rules(morals?) to help guide us in how to deal with people we don’t know.
I think all morals are rules for treating strangers like they are “known” to us because it would be impossible to live in large groups otherwise.
[edit] we also trust through experience that the strangers we meet are also following the same rules.
[quote]roybot wrote:
I can’t think of any moral uses for a ring of invisibility. It lends itself more to immoral activity than moral purposes. The moral choice would be to leave the ring where you found it.
[/quote]
You could become a superhero!
You would not even have to wear tights, or your underwear above them!
In fact, you could totally do without any kind of underwear or tights whatsoever…
[quote]alexus wrote:
If some situation ever arose where humans were better off going at it alone, you can bet your ass polite society would dissolve in a heartbeat. You can see it in 3rd world countries where there is little education and the leaders are all corrupt.
Are the corrupt leaders really better off for being corrupt?[/quote]
There are non corrupt political leaders?
Pray tell, where !?!
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I think the reason why we have leaders, governments, and rules is because we do need them. Not necessarily because all of us would turn on each other but it would only take a few nasty situations with a few nasty people for people to develop a “shoot first ask questions later” attitude especially if there were no consequences for the nasty behavior. We need/have rules(morals?) to help guide us in how to deal with people we don’t know.
I think all morals are rules for treating strangers like they are “known” to us because it would be impossible to live in large groups otherwise.
[edit] we also trust through experience that the strangers we meet are also following the same rules. [/quote]
I dunno, people in the Wild West managed quite well.
Dont think of it as lynching, it is a pedagogic intervention.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I think the reason why we have leaders, governments, and rules is because we do need them. Not necessarily because all of us would turn on each other but it would only take a few nasty situations with a few nasty people for people to develop a “shoot first ask questions later” attitude especially if there were no consequences for the nasty behavior. We need/have rules(morals?) to help guide us in how to deal with people we don’t know.
I think all morals are rules for treating strangers like they are “known” to us because it would be impossible to live in large groups otherwise.
[edit] we also trust through experience that the strangers we meet are also following the same rules. [/quote]
I dunno, people in the Wild West managed quite well.
Dont think of it as lynching, it is a pedagogic intervention.
[/quote]
The rules were established long before the wild west and there were rules and lawmen then.
Alexus, I agree with that in order to deny Hobbes’ conclusion that we need an all powerful sovereing, all you need to do is to deny his premise that the State of Nature is really true. It’s definitely a hypothetical, b/c there’s no historical examples he’s basing his theory on, just a general idea.
I like the Somalia example as well. I agree that when things go badly, people will do what they have to do. Kantian ethics says to essentially do ‘good’ no matter what, as do most systems, but I don’t know how realistic that would be if a person were starving, etc.
I also realize that morals are completely man-made, obvi. Morals didn’t just appear in our minds. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that God enlightened us with them. I understand that morality is a man-made, social construct that’s purpose is to keep society in a harmonious balance.
I’d say that I’m somewhere between Kantianism and Hobbesianism. Kant said to ‘do good’ NO MATTER WHAT. But if it was me vs the other guy for life or death, who knows…
I also don’t like Hobbes’ solution to the State of Nature. I agree with his premise that without gov’t or rules, life would be nasty brutish and short. And I agree that the conclusion of giving power to an all-powerful sovereign follows logically. But I DON’T like his political ideas about the all powerful sovereign.
In theory, his system would work great. An all powerful guy, with out best interests at heart, would do great things for us. He’d keep us all “in awe” and society would be great.
But, history shows that corruption changes things. Give one person (or a group of people) unlimited power and they take advantage. Hobbes also says that if you agree to ‘submit’ to this sovereign, then you have ZERO right to question his authority, etc. Sounds a bit like Nazism to me.
I believe that Hobbes had this political end in mind, then worked back to form his premise that without the sovereign society would be horrible. It seems that he uses the State of Nature argument in order to justify an all-powerful government. But whatever.
Anyways, good stuff in here so far.
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I also realize that morals are completely man-made, obvi.[/quote]
Natural Law. NO they are not man-made they are known by all men.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I also realize that morals are completely man-made, obvi.[/quote]
Natural Law. NO they are not man-made they are known by all men.[/quote]
A bold assertion, incorrect on many levels. Unless you care to mean moral law is merely descriptive? Most certainly not known by all men either.
Leadership is the culmination of superior “status seeking” behavior. In societies where women are not property, they ALWAYS choose men of high status. In societies where women are property the Leader controls the most resources and thus, the best mating opportunities. One could argue that it’s all about the pussy. A “moral” leader is a logical fallacy, IMHO - how do you think he BECAME a leader? It certainly was not by being a “super nice guy”… It was because he challenged and destroyed his enemies. Overtly or covertly.
As for moral behavior being innate, I believe certain behaviors/fears are innate (fear of the dark/heights/fire/water/etc…) and that these fears are an adaptation resulting from so many people dying from/in/around said phenomena. I believe that “morals” are the same - enough people had their cock cut off after raping a woman, or their hand cut off after stealing, or being stoned to death for <> that we have an INSTINCTUAL fear of those things… I’m not so sure it’s out of the goodness of our heart, more of an act of self preservation! LOL
I believe in the right environment, men can learn to adopt a moral way of thinking (forming a paradigm and identity and so forth), but the reason we’re still around is because of our capacity to ADAPT. Take away the supportive environment, and watch the man rape his neighbors (just like what happened in Bosnia and Serbia not so long ago).
Just like you can’t trust a dog, but you can trust a dog to BE a dog, the same goes for man. He will move in the direction that will give him the most status (and thus mating opportunity), failing that possibility, he will move in the direction that will enable him to survive. History has shown this time and time again. Of course there will be exceptions. Oftentimes, these exceptions end up “founding” religions or social movements (or are used as a rallying point/symbol by others to manipulate and control people).
Would I put on the ring/cloak of invisibility? Goddamn right I would! LOL And while I may kid myself and try to “do good” with it somehow, I’d be fooling myself if thought I’d have the restraint to never use it for personal gain. We are, after all, HUMAN. And that’s not necessarily a BAD thing…
< --------------- has ‘situational’ Ethics ----------------------- that’s right.
[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
Oh yea, if I could turn invisible I would divide my time between women’s locker rooms, pooping in random places, and tripping people carrying trays of food. [/quote]
I only see an ethics issue with one of the three
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I also realize that morals are completely man-made, obvi.[/quote]
Natural Law. NO they are not man-made they are known by all men.[/quote]
A bold assertion, incorrect on many levels. Unless you care to mean moral law is merely descriptive? Most certainly not known by all men either.[/quote]
How is it incorrect?
And, yes that is the assertion of Natural Law.
[quote]orion wrote:
Dont think of it as lynching, it is a pedagogic intervention.
[/quote]
I am putting this quote up there with advice I got before my defense: “Don’t worry, it’s just a bunch of questions, just like the Inquisition.”
OP these are great discussions for a few folks sitting around a room, perhaps sharing a drink. Too much is lost and/or cannot be communicated via internet. Love the topic though.
BodyGuard, I agree. But still, why not?
@ Brother Chris:
I’ve always been interested in Natural Law theories. I do agree that some things SEEM more instinctual. But do you really, truly think that without ANY societal influence that people would understand these rules?
I also see a resemblance to Hobbes in Natural Law, kind of. Hobbes defines the “right of nature” as “the liberty each man has to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature, that is to say, his own life.” Just kind of reminded me of natural law.
Anyway, I’m a huge fan of natural law. I think that kings, sovereigns, gov’ts, whatever…make all kinds of rules and regulations. But there is a higher calling than the laws of man. Maybe that higher calling is a law from God, or maybe just a ‘humanity’ law, but I think that there IS a higher set of rules than the ones that govern us from our gov’ts. I don’t necessarily agree that Natural Law is just embedded in us from day 1, but I do agree with many of the premises.
I think that most people would agree with Hobbes. If your gov’t made a law that forced you to commit suicide, Hobbes would claim the right of nature to essentially preserve your nature and therefore would be claiming something similar to Natural Law.
@ BodyGuard. I don’t drink, so this is my barstool lol.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
I can’t think of any moral uses for a ring of invisibility. It lends itself more to immoral activity than moral purposes. The moral choice would be to leave the ring where you found it.
[/quote]
You could become a superhero!
You would not even have to wear tights, or your underwear above them!
In fact, you could totally do without any kind of underwear or tights whatsoever…[/quote]
Talking of invisible rings and superheroes, have you heard the invisible man joke?..
It’s an unusually quiet day in Superhero City. Superman is patrolling the skies, keeping his super-eyes peeled for some super-criminal activity…a few hours pass and still no sign of any crooks. Supes cruises for a while, is about to call it a day and kick back in the Fortress of Solitude, when he’s snapped out of his malaise by the sight of Wonder Woman sunbathing nude on the top of the Hall of Justice. Her legs are parted and she’s moaning loudly.
Superman figures that this is too good an opportunity to miss, so he uses his super-speed to fly down, give WW a quick pumping and make off into the sky before she realizes what happened. Before you can say “faster than a speeding bullet”, it’s all over…WW feels a quick jolt, a sudden blast of air and Supes is gone.
WW sits up on her lounger and says, “What the fuck was that?”. The Invisible Man replies “I don’t know but my asshole is killing me!”…
Cautionary tale there ^.
Most people act the way do because of fear…including the ones in this thread claiming they don’t. Whether that be fear of social consequences, fear of afterlife consequences, or fear of litigation, most people do not act the way they do just because they are nice.
Most guys here would tell their girl if she was getting fat unless they thought she would take it wrong…therefore, we curb our words.
I doubt any person here is just “nice just to be nice no matter what”. That’s bullshit.