Official Question-Answer Thread
- Thread starter Naku ist krig
- Start date
- Status
Wolfman Von Jones
The trouble with you
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
A: Trials of smiles while sorting out piles methinks.
Q: Are you as bored and downbeat as I am this morning?
Q: Are you as bored and downbeat as I am this morning?
rahvin
keeper of the flame
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
A: There is nothing more subjective than morals. Every single person will view the world differently and thus their moral guidelines will be different from everybody elses. Although they may have some overlapping features, such as no sex before marriage, or killing is wrong, the 'bands' in which these morals fall are often very different; for example, killing is wrong, EXCEPT in defence of one's own life, or the life of loved one. Euthanasia is another perfect example of subjective morals.
Q: Are you going through a moral dilemma of any kind my friend?
Q: Are you going through a moral dilemma of any kind my friend?
rahvin
keeper of the flame
A: not really. i'm just interested in defining the possible boundaries of absolutes in life, and therefore also moral absolutes. it helps identifying stimuli that come from the culture people live in and telling them apart from stimuli that might be inbred or something. it has been proven around the '50s, that some language structures (a general idea of "verb + subject", for instance) are very likely to be already in our brains when we're born, and i sometimes wonder if broad moral standards such as "killing is [generally] wrong" might be structural too instead of a product of living in a community whose survival is obviously based on discouraging self-destruction among its members.
Q: so, do you think that aside from discriminatory circumstances (if that's how you call them over on the little island) "killing is wrong" is an absolute?
Q: so, do you think that aside from discriminatory circumstances (if that's how you call them over on the little island) "killing is wrong" is an absolute?
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
A: Killing for no reason whatsoever is wrong to me. As far as that goes, I consider that an absolute. The idea of killing for the pleasure killing gives is morally reprehensible to me. But other circumstances, I'm not so sure. Mercy-killing, or euthanasia, in a situation where the killed has no quality of life, I consider a situation where it is very difficult to say 'killing is wrong' is an absolute. Therefore, my opinion is that 'killing is wrong' is not an absolute; there is too much ground for varying circumstances to allow it to be absolute.
Which comes back to moral subjectivity; real life cannot put every possible event into a moral code on day 1, there are too many variables. Therefore, not only are morals subjective, but they also evolve and adapt, changing depending on circumstances. What you may consider concrete today is quicksand tomorrow.
Q: How far do you agree with this statement?
Which comes back to moral subjectivity; real life cannot put every possible event into a moral code on day 1, there are too many variables. Therefore, not only are morals subjective, but they also evolve and adapt, changing depending on circumstances. What you may consider concrete today is quicksand tomorrow.
Q: How far do you agree with this statement?
rahvin
keeper of the flame
A: specifically, a lot. yet broadly speaking i'm a bit perplexed by the kind of inferences that can be drawn from it. such as: the interpretation of any event is particular and limited to a thorough knowledge of the exact circumstances in which said event took place. now, while the kind of investigation needed for interpretation, as it results from this statement, can surely be contained and limited, it is still way too easy - if just for the sake of paradox - to let the doubt in that the knowledge of all possible variables is never enough to allow for a conscious, wide-spread judgement on any event. a likely consequence? rapists getting away with it because the psychological mindframe of both perpetrator and victim are by and large impossible to ascertain afterwards by any third party.
this starts off from something i personally agree with (judgements depending on circumstance) but ends up in something that really sickens me.
so are emotional standards absolutes now?
Q: are we boring everybody else?
this starts off from something i personally agree with (judgements depending on circumstance) but ends up in something that really sickens me.
so are emotional standards absolutes now?
Q: are we boring everybody else?
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
A: Probably 
But I was answering this question from a personal perspective, as according to one's own view of a situation, not society's, and not a third person who must decide on a matter. That is why (as I have recently learned) in many criminal matters in England, motive is often not regarded as important in dealing with a crime. Intent is, but motive is not (i.e. I intended to kill this person, as can be proven by my actions, but my reason for killing is immaterial except for the possibility of mitigation of sentence). What I was giving was my general attitude to morals, and killing people, not society's. Indeed, society (through way of the legal system) has said that killing is wrong and is very specific on what it considers an unlawful killing to be. I referred in my answer only to an individuals perception of morals.
And yes, my own moral system says that rape is always wrong. However, my own personal conflict is from recent cases here in England, is what constitutes rape, and how the cases are handled.
Q: Does this make my answer seem less amoral and psychotic?
But I was answering this question from a personal perspective, as according to one's own view of a situation, not society's, and not a third person who must decide on a matter. That is why (as I have recently learned) in many criminal matters in England, motive is often not regarded as important in dealing with a crime. Intent is, but motive is not (i.e. I intended to kill this person, as can be proven by my actions, but my reason for killing is immaterial except for the possibility of mitigation of sentence). What I was giving was my general attitude to morals, and killing people, not society's. Indeed, society (through way of the legal system) has said that killing is wrong and is very specific on what it considers an unlawful killing to be. I referred in my answer only to an individuals perception of morals.And yes, my own moral system says that rape is always wrong. However, my own personal conflict is from recent cases here in England, is what constitutes rape, and how the cases are handled.
Q: Does this make my answer seem less amoral and psychotic?
rahvin
keeper of the flame
A: indeed. it just makes it sound a little more a-social. after all society as an instrument of justice depends on individual judgements that often concern morals, and personal opinions on morals. or at least the common consensus on etc. etc. i understand that abstractions like "society" and "common consensus" are created to the very purpose of separating the boyfriend of the raped woman, the mother of the murdered son, the wife of the killer and the best friend of the rapist from the interpretation of the event. but in tangled webs of abstractions all parties have motives, in addition to intent (i knew about the difference from my days as a law student, btw), and in the end society skirts the issue on motives that are its very own.
Q: err.
after all society as an instrument of justice depends on individual judgements that often concern morals, and personal opinions on morals. or at least the common consensus on etc. etc. i understand that abstractions like "society" and "common consensus" are created to the very purpose of separating the boyfriend of the raped woman, the mother of the murdered son, the wife of the killer and the best friend of the rapist from the interpretation of the event. but in tangled webs of abstractions all parties have motives, in addition to intent (i knew about the difference from my days as a law student, btw), and in the end society skirts the issue on motives that are its very own.Q: err.
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
A: awfully but for those of us who got home at around 4am this fine sunday morning, it's amusing
Q: any other philosophical thoughts you'd like to discuss while you're at it?
but for those of us who got home at around 4am this fine sunday morning, it's amusing Q: any other philosophical thoughts you'd like to discuss while you're at it?
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
rahvin
keeper of the flame
Tebus
An abode of few.
A: Sure. I think that when analyzing which morals are absolute and which which morals are subjective, and I think this has already been said, it is important to consider the mental state of those that are adament about a certain moral. And that includes yourself or myself. Because I've found that when people are emotionally involved when deciding on whether or not a moral is indeed absolute, their selfish nature may come into play, and will cause that moral to find many contradictive ideas. And if someone finds their moral to contradict anothers, at least one of the people has come up with the moral out of selfish needs. They may not have been consciously aware of that, but its something that may have happened and both of the people should be aware of it. With the example of killing is wrong, that one runs into issues when it comes to defending yourself or one you care about. But the problem with that is, that moral is rooted on selfish grounds. It is instinctive for us to defend our physical well being and to stop anything that might jeopardize it. It's nearly impossible to not try to kill someone that is trying to kill your loved one. But nevertheless, that exception to the moral, of only killing when defending yourself or another, is entirely relative to ourselves. I tend to beleive that killing is wrong is an absolute. But would I always be able to comply with this? I highly doubt it.
Q: What are your thoughts?
EDIT: I see we've moved on.
Q: What are your thoughts?
EDIT: I see we've moved on.
A: she was first exposed to immoral behaviour and general drunkeness at a bar til about 2am, then waited for some 1,5 hours outside her brother's apartment only to realise he wouldn't wake up and let her in. so then she went home
hence the deprivation of sleep and brain cells.
Q: a beach in thailand or a camel in afghanistan? choose, quickly.
hence the deprivation of sleep and brain cells.
Q: a beach in thailand or a camel in afghanistan? choose, quickly.
A: a camel in afghanistan ..ive always watned to ride a camel
Q: what did u have for breakfast/?
Q: what did u have for breakfast/?
- Status
Similar threads
