I sincerely hope there is a hell...

[Neddie]

Neddie, again I ask: since morals are subjective, why is it acceptable for you or a policeman to kill a murderer, but not for a murderer to kill you?

That is up to personal decision, you can't generalize my response to all. I personally think that everyone has the same license to kill, and it is their own decision to exercise it. Unfortunately, the decentralization of legitimate violence leads to the collapse of the state, so I also must note that it is necessary for some people to foreswear it of their own accord.

If I am to commit violence, I have very specific reasons for doing so, I weigh each event separately, and regardless I feel unjustified and in the wrong to some extent. This leads to a circuit of self-hatred, of course, but I prefer that over acting blindly based on assumptions which I have no knowledge of as such.

[smoth]

its clear now, the pink is just disguise... behind it smoth is made of pure evil and darkness

bwa ha ha... . . . wait.. what?

[Neddie]

no, some things are wrong... happy couple strolling through the park with a baby that will one day foster world peace and end hunger. Someone rolls up jams a ps3 into the baby's ass rapes the mom and feeds the parts to their family while jacking off on the body of the father..


pretty evil.

I just feel that everything is wrong to some extent, and nobody can take the moral high ground - why do you think I joke about the moral high ground with Fang and Lathan? It's a hilarious and utterly innaccurate concept in my experience.

I don't really want people to have the same insight into reality that I do. The mixture of pessimism, fatalism and realism which I've come to after years is misery inducing and it doesn't connect well with other parts of my character. It does not prepare one for involvement in a modern society, and it does not promote an enjoyable life.

[smoth]

I particle of dust on a a satellite in a system so devoid of energy that all matter which can freeze has turned to ice, all energy used up sitting idle. In no way wrong. Perfectly neutral, frozen in time.

[Neddie]

That system would be an isolated one, and is either idealized (and in the process simplified) or exists outside of our own understanding of reality. In addition, time can't apply, as it is only a measure of change and needs a reference point for relevance and definition.

[smoth]

It does not exist outside of our reality, the universe is huge and a system devoid of a star can die of heat death. Such a death would result in freezing, the freezing would eventually reach a point where all movement even at the smallest levels, stops. A true neutral.

[Neddie]

That must occur in the totality of the universe before it can be said to occur anywhere within it as there is always the potential for energy transfer. Once it has occured in the totality of the universe, it is beyond science to explain the situation because their will be nobody to observe, nothing to measure, and no definite precendent.

[smoth]

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

Is within one light year range of the sun. Imagine no sun.

[Neddie]

That doesn't support what you've been saying, though it is interesting.

[smoth]

I am saying that there large masses of frozen gas. within 1 light year of the sun. So, we effectively can have a dust particle at a perfectly idle state. Esp in a dead system. Meaning it can do nothing. No wrong, right or anything.

[Felix the Cat]

no, some things are wrong... happy couple strolling through the park with a baby that will one day foster world peace and end hunger. Someone rolls up jams a ps3 into the baby's ass rapes the mom and feeds the parts to their family while jacking off on the body of the father..


pretty evil.

I just feel that everything is wrong to some extent, and nobody can take the moral high ground - why do you think I joke about the moral high ground with Fang and Lathan? It's a hilarious and utterly innaccurate concept in my experience.

I don't really want people to have the same insight into reality that I do. The mixture of pessimism, fatalism and realism which I've come to after years is misery inducing and it doesn't connect well with other parts of my character. It does not prepare one for involvement in a modern society, and it does not promote an enjoyable life.

The gentleman thinks rather highly of himself.

[Neddie]

no, some things are wrong... happy couple strolling through the park with a baby that will one day foster world peace and end hunger. Someone rolls up jams a ps3 into the baby's ass rapes the mom and feeds the parts to their family while jacking off on the body of the father..


pretty evil.

I just feel that everything is wrong to some extent, and nobody can take the moral high ground - why do you think I joke about the moral high ground with Fang and Lathan? It's a hilarious and utterly innaccurate concept in my experience.

I don't really want people to have the same insight into reality that I do. The mixture of pessimism, fatalism and realism which I've come to after years is misery inducing and it doesn't connect well with other parts of my character. It does not prepare one for involvement in a modern society, and it does not promote an enjoyable life.

The gentleman thinks rather highly of himself.

Oh, I only try to match my esteemed peers on this beloved forum.

[Lindir The Green]

"Natural" and "Inalienable" rights are just names given to the morals of a society. Different society, different morals. Almost everyone agrees with the morals of the society they were raised in, and almost everyone thinks that their morals are "right."

Everything is subjective, unless you believe in God. But God is also subjective.

The end result of this kind of thinking is death. What right do you have to fight back against someone who wants you dead? Morals are subjective, so why is it acceptable for you or a policeman to kill him, but not for him to kill you? Further, would it then not be acceptable for China to genocide Caucasians? If their population thinks we deserve to die, and since they have far more people than us, who are we to say otherwise?

It is acceptable because I and my society accept it. China might think it is acceptable to genocide Caucasians, but Caucasians (generally) don't, so they can argue and fight back. Neither side is "absolutely right," because in my opinion there is no absolute rightness. But both sides are relatively right, because they are right as defined in their society.

Everyone is relatively right, because they (almost always) agree with themself. To prosper, one also has to agree with the basics of the morals of their society, which are there so that the society can exist. Only the societies with certain sets of morals can survive.

A set of morals that sometimes involves stoning of little girls conflicts with the set of morals in my society, and so I consider it wrong, but I can't consider it evil, because it perfectly follows the moral code of the society, and it might even be good for the society (or else the society would have been destroyed by some other, similar society.)

All of this is IMO, and I think it's correct, and I can try to argue it, but I can't say that it is absolutely correct, that the universe wills it to be correct. Well, I could, but I would find the statement incorrect.

[Felix the Cat]

...and you've just made a perfect case for the dangers of moral relativism.

If we cannot define what is moral and what is immoral outside of the subjective whims of the mob that is society as a whole, then any value judgments concerning behavior are impossible, as a neutral observer would have no rational basis on which to judge the morality of, say, genocide. If there is no way to make such a value judgment, then there is no way to say that genocide is "good" or "bad" outside of socially constructed norms which vary from society to society. Since these socially constructed norms are equally valid under a system of moral relativism, no behavior that is accepted by one society may be challenged by another.

See also: Rwanda.

[manored]

no behavior that is accepted by one society may be challenged by another.

Winhout clash of societys there is no evolution of societys, so I think this wrong.

And I think that if everthing is relative, the chances of you being wrong are so infinitly high as they are infinitly small, so just do what you think its right and everthing will be fine

And I think its right to make other people bend to my way of thinking...

[Lindir The Green]

...and you've just made a perfect case for the dangers of moral relativism.

Yes, it does make me rather apathetic about these things.

I still am against stonings and genocide and murder and unequal rights, but I don't think the people who take place in them are evil. It really pisses me off when my friend goes on about how "barbaric" middle easterners are.

I think it is up to the society to decide its morals. If their decision actually affects me or my society though, I'll try to fight it.

And oppression of minorities, or a majority not in power, is bad... I can't really justify that though; its just the influence of my environment, and emotion. In almost any other case though, the previous stands.

[Felix the Cat]

Upon what basis are you against "stonings and genocide and murder"?

Upon what basis do you make the statement "oppression of minorities, or a majority not in power, is bad"?

Is it mere personal preference? Is morality merely an aggregrate of personal preferences? If the state of South Carolina secedes and the aggregrate of personal preferences in that state is to "kill all them sand n*ggers dead", and South Carolina proceeds to kill every Arab-looking person in the state, is it moral for South Carolina to do that?

[LathanStanley]

I guess they heard of the phrase, "do un to others, as you wish them to do un to you."



classic example of a lack of education, civility, and morals.

[manored]

Opression of minoritys = bad
Opression of majoritys = bad

What can we opress then? :)

Do what you think right. If South Carolina thinks its moral to kill arabians, dont say they are evil but try to stop em if you think they are wrong.

[Felix the Cat]

Opression of minoritys = bad
Opression of majoritys = bad

What can we opress then? :)

Do what you think right. If South Carolina thinks its moral to kill arabians, dont say they are evil but try to stop em if you think they are wrong.

Why shouldn't I say that they are evil if I find that their actions violate the natural rights that each person has simply by virtue of being alive? I'm sorry, but the morality of systematic killings and genocide is not to be left up to mere individual opinion. There's something deeper and more fundamental at play here.