7 tyranitars
Well-Known Member
Very well, with war it is a bit harder. Even thought it is just human equivelent of teratorial behaviour.
I would ask if they liked being a hypocrit.
Because killing is easier then capturing.
Last edited:
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Morality
- Thread starter Zevn
- Start date
Very well, with war it is a bit harder. Even thought it is just human equivelent of teratorial behaviour.
I would ask if they liked being a hypocrit.
Because killing is easier then capturing.
How about killing to defend others? Because that IS what a soldier does. They get in harms way and makes it expensive to try and harm others.
Hypocrite? Killing killers is not hypocritical, it's a service to peace loving humanity.
So morals has convenience clauses? See how fluid they are? There is a line that people won't cross... until they can rationalize that next step. I've taken a few more steps than many others, I can look over the edge and see the monster inside. I am even willing to utilize it's nature to do the greater good as needed, then beat it back into the pits. A day may come that I loose that battle, but we all have that beast within, some just refuse to look it in the eyes and say, "You're my Biatch." Do as you are told and you'll get to come out when I need you.
How about killing to defend others? Because that IS what a soldier does. They get in harms way and makes it expensive to try and harm others.
Hypocrite? Killing killers is not hypocritical, it's a service to peace loving humanity.
So morals has convenience clauses? See how fluid they are? There is a line that people won't cross... until they can rationalize that next step. I've taken a few more steps than many others, I can look over the edge and see the monster inside. I am even willing to utilize it's nature to do the greater good as needed, then beat it back into the pits. A day may come that I loose that battle, but we all have that beast within, some just refuse to look it in the eyes and say, "You're my Biatch." Do as you are told and you'll get to come out when I need you.
1. For the soldier comment, it is still moraly wrong(on my sense of Morality. Morality does change between demographics.) I think, for I have never been a soldier, so I cannot verify what they feel, but I think soldiers know what they are doing is wrong, but they go in head strong, knowing that it is for the greater good. So the get a form of Utilitarism in their minds.
2. I would say it is hypocretical because we didn't let the justice system do their jobs. For example, what if he had killed George Zimmerman, then all this new evidence comes out, then he has just made a false killing.
3.So would you say that you agree with Niccolò Machiavelli? I agree with you here. Morals do have convience clauses (hence, the death penalty.) But like I said ealier, that person knows that they are going against their morals (i.e. killing) and must make peace the best way they can, which usually includes convincing themselves they are right.
On the contrary, We have to believe what we are doing IS right and just... for the majority of us. Some just wanted to hose as many (Insert derogatory here!) as they could though.
They give Dex the moral high ground in the fact he works within the justice system and has access to information that gives him a high probability to find a shred of evidence that proves innocence. I realize there is a bit of suspended disbelief but that's another story.
I haven't read all of "The Prince". Machiavelli is a bit "dirty" for me personally as he tends to try and manipulate others. I'm a blunt object if I'm being fair. If I think something is morally right I have to know I would be alright if the logic was used against me if I was doing something "wrong".
Wait, U.S Soldier, or U.S Marine? Because I coulda sworn you were a Marine.
You should have try getting all the enlisted and tying up all the officer including the company CO and let them sleep outside for the night. Totally worth being smoke for.
I've been out long enough to not care about the fine line between being an army dog and a Devil Dog
It was much funner having the other platoons walk around with red marker on their throats than taking the effort to tie up the individuals! Plus the joy of gunning down the CO is a big enough feather in our cap.
Roaring Apathy
Fight the good fight
So, I was thinking of switching things up a bit by throwing a new moral theory on the table, to see if its viable or not, though Im sure its been done before.
Simply put, I don't believe in the idea of "right or "wrong". I know it seems illogical to make a moral theory thats based around the idea of moral subjectivity, but bare with me.
The thing about morals is that they tend to be based more around personal opinions than fact, influenced by a persons upbringing, beliefs, etc. As such, I was considering if it was possible to base a moral theory on a more concrete fact and problem solving based ideology. Basically, it would have three simple parts, the premise, the anti thesis to the premise, and an act logically executed upon that premise and anti thesis
For example, you guys were apparently discussing the moral rightness or wrongness of a soldier killing an enemy soldier, as the person is a human being,which most people would consider moral to kill. Lets say however, that we have a premise, "Our country values peace". Lets also say that the anti thesis, or rather one possible anti thesis to the premise would be "extremists, terrorists, and enemy nations threaten peace". If thats the case, you would reason logically and create an act upon the anti thesis "in order to keep our peace, we must defeat or do away with these antagonists to our peace". Simple enough right?
Now of course, you can probably already tell that there's still a bit opinion based thinking here. First, the anti thesis. There is, of course, more options than just doing away or defeating the said antagonists, but even this can be reasoned out logically. Lets say that theres another potential act on the anti thesis "in order to keep the peace, we must make peace with the antagonists to our peace". So which one would you choose? The answer is to take all factors into account. Lets say that one piece of evidence is "the antagonists to our peace do not advocate peace, and instead advocate submission". Lets take another piece of evidence, "The antagonists will use deadly force if necessary to achieve their cause". From this, we can make a new premise "the antagonists to our peace will probably not come to a peaceful resolution with our nation". We need one more anti thesis however, which can be made with the next piece of evidence "the antagonists have said they will and have begun to make war with our nation". The new anti thesis in question is "Our peace will be threatened if we allow the antagonists to our peace to have their way". From this, we logically assume that the most reasonable course of action is to make war with the antagonists.
Or course, there's STILL some form of opinion based logic in relation to the inital premise "Our country values peace". Of course, this initial premise is created from other premises, such as "We desire a stable living environment". The next premise is, "To have a stable living environment, we need peace", and finally "therefore, our nation desires peace." The proto premise, so to speak, "we desire a stable living environment", is not based so much on opinion than it is simply on simple desire. Of course even then the the desire can be influenced by opinion, but the point of the moral theory isnt to completely eradicate opinion since opinion is impossible to eradicate in a world with no absolutes. Instead, the idea is to weed out opinion as much as possible.
In the case that some one still makes the wrong decision however, it still wouldnt be considered wrong in the contemporary sense. In other words its not "the person who made the wrong choice is immoral", instead its "the person who made the wrong choice was illogical and irrational".
A key point of the moral theory is to try and be as consistent as possible, and to not allow double standard to flourish. While of course you may think that with the subjectivity of the premises that double standard can be worded in a way that can potentially still stand, remember that any and all premises and antithesis must be rationally and logically thought out before allowing an act to take place.
If any one can think of a logical inconsistency to this moral theory, feel free to criticize, I dont bite =).
And p.s. I notice you guys been discussing machiavelli. Just a little trivia, machiavelli didnt ACTUALLY advocate what he wrote in 'the prince". The whole thing was political satire and trolling, to the point that he was really the Stephen Colbert of the renaissance.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18787_6-books-everyone-including-your-english-teacher-got-wrong.html
#4, the sources are the hypertexts in the article.
Have a nice day
Simply put, I don't believe in the idea of "right or "wrong". I know it seems illogical to make a moral theory thats based around the idea of moral subjectivity, but bare with me.
The thing about morals is that they tend to be based more around personal opinions than fact, influenced by a persons upbringing, beliefs, etc. As such, I was considering if it was possible to base a moral theory on a more concrete fact and problem solving based ideology. Basically, it would have three simple parts, the premise, the anti thesis to the premise, and an act logically executed upon that premise and anti thesis
For example, you guys were apparently discussing the moral rightness or wrongness of a soldier killing an enemy soldier, as the person is a human being,which most people would consider moral to kill. Lets say however, that we have a premise, "Our country values peace". Lets also say that the anti thesis, or rather one possible anti thesis to the premise would be "extremists, terrorists, and enemy nations threaten peace". If thats the case, you would reason logically and create an act upon the anti thesis "in order to keep our peace, we must defeat or do away with these antagonists to our peace". Simple enough right?
Now of course, you can probably already tell that there's still a bit opinion based thinking here. First, the anti thesis. There is, of course, more options than just doing away or defeating the said antagonists, but even this can be reasoned out logically. Lets say that theres another potential act on the anti thesis "in order to keep the peace, we must make peace with the antagonists to our peace". So which one would you choose? The answer is to take all factors into account. Lets say that one piece of evidence is "the antagonists to our peace do not advocate peace, and instead advocate submission". Lets take another piece of evidence, "The antagonists will use deadly force if necessary to achieve their cause". From this, we can make a new premise "the antagonists to our peace will probably not come to a peaceful resolution with our nation". We need one more anti thesis however, which can be made with the next piece of evidence "the antagonists have said they will and have begun to make war with our nation". The new anti thesis in question is "Our peace will be threatened if we allow the antagonists to our peace to have their way". From this, we logically assume that the most reasonable course of action is to make war with the antagonists.
Or course, there's STILL some form of opinion based logic in relation to the inital premise "Our country values peace". Of course, this initial premise is created from other premises, such as "We desire a stable living environment". The next premise is, "To have a stable living environment, we need peace", and finally "therefore, our nation desires peace." The proto premise, so to speak, "we desire a stable living environment", is not based so much on opinion than it is simply on simple desire. Of course even then the the desire can be influenced by opinion, but the point of the moral theory isnt to completely eradicate opinion since opinion is impossible to eradicate in a world with no absolutes. Instead, the idea is to weed out opinion as much as possible.
In the case that some one still makes the wrong decision however, it still wouldnt be considered wrong in the contemporary sense. In other words its not "the person who made the wrong choice is immoral", instead its "the person who made the wrong choice was illogical and irrational".
A key point of the moral theory is to try and be as consistent as possible, and to not allow double standard to flourish. While of course you may think that with the subjectivity of the premises that double standard can be worded in a way that can potentially still stand, remember that any and all premises and antithesis must be rationally and logically thought out before allowing an act to take place.
If any one can think of a logical inconsistency to this moral theory, feel free to criticize, I dont bite =).
And p.s. I notice you guys been discussing machiavelli. Just a little trivia, machiavelli didnt ACTUALLY advocate what he wrote in 'the prince". The whole thing was political satire and trolling, to the point that he was really the Stephen Colbert of the renaissance.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18787_6-books-everyone-including-your-english-teacher-got-wrong.html
#4, the sources are the hypertexts in the article.
Have a nice day
The Director
Ancient Trainer
@ the renegade
What you are saying is what most official philosophers and moralists do already, and most people do this naturally as well. The problem is that morals are opinionated so unless you can set a certain amount of values to a moral theory its just an argument structure.
Personally I go for variety and art. To destroy a piece of art be it book, picture, film, game etc. is an abhorrent act to me. As for variety, to create as many different things as possible, be it human, art or tool is good.
As for "The Prince", I would question your source, but I do agree that the book was unusual for a man like Machiavelli to of written straight, unless he was writing to make people aware of tactics such character's use. I read The Prince and, for the government it has in mind, the advice is convincing and sound as a general rule of thumb.
What you are saying is what most official philosophers and moralists do already, and most people do this naturally as well. The problem is that morals are opinionated so unless you can set a certain amount of values to a moral theory its just an argument structure.
Personally I go for variety and art. To destroy a piece of art be it book, picture, film, game etc. is an abhorrent act to me. As for variety, to create as many different things as possible, be it human, art or tool is good.
As for "The Prince", I would question your source, but I do agree that the book was unusual for a man like Machiavelli to of written straight, unless he was writing to make people aware of tactics such character's use. I read The Prince and, for the government it has in mind, the advice is convincing and sound as a general rule of thumb.
I know you just tried to be really philosophical just now, but I think a lot of us have already realized that there's no such thing as "right" and "wrong"--that things simply are--and that judgements should ideally be made based on all factors present and not just one's opinions or perceptions.
7 tyranitars
Well-Known Member
How about killing to defend others? Because that IS what a soldier does. They get in harms way and makes it expensive to try and harm others.
Hypocrite? Killing killers is not hypocritical, it's a service to peace loving humanity.
So morals has convenience clauses? See how fluid they are? There is a line that people won't cross... until they can rationalize that next step. I've taken a few more steps than many others, I can look over the edge and see the monster inside. I am even willing to utilize it's nature to do the greater good as needed, then beat it back into the pits. A day may come that I loose that battle, but we all have that beast within, some just refuse to look it in the eyes and say, "You're my Biatch." Do as you are told and you'll get to come out when I need you.
That was what I was trying to say.
Roaring Apathy
Fight the good fight
Speak for yourself, as far as Im aware most people still follow the out dated idea of black and white right and wrong. Any instance of taking factors into consideration generally tends to just be a willingful inconsistency, since people still see fit to exact punishment, usually in an emotional charged way. Its especially apparent when people still hold onto beliefs and values, despite any rational or logical process that would suggest they ought to, well stop.
About people thinking that way already, look above.
Not quite, the idea is like I said to be as thoroughly consistent as possible. People will still have opinions as to how certain things should be done, but the way Ive structured the moral theory is that no matter what they would always be limited to the most efficient if possible method, assuming they stick by it. Itll weed out gray areas and only consider the absolute truth facts or evidence when making decisions. The only factor that is purely opinion is the prime premise, an example being "We as human like life", which can be anything really, like "I like to cause pain and misery to others"(rather out of place I know) or "I want to find out the mysteries of life as we know it".
If you want, throw a potential moral dilemna at me, as well as a prime premise and Ill show you how the moral theory can weed out potential gray areas and opinions.
Also bare in mind you two Im talking about people in real life, not a few people you know online. I fell prey to generalizing their views to the views of people in real life once myself, and it either got blank stares or got mad dogged. I have yet to find some one who thinks differently than the rest of the world irl, sadly.
The Director
Ancient Trainer
And I was talking about mainly scientists/moralists. They already do what you are suggesting. However the general population probably do have black and white morality (depending on where you are in the world), it's easier to have black and white morality. It's simple. Even if it does go into realms of hypocrisy, most moralities do anyway even ones based on logic as even what is "logical" can be up to opinion.
e.g. What is 1/3?
0.3 recurring
3*0.3 recurring is 0.9 recurring, so it isn't a third
0.9 recurring is 1 etc.
Now although that is a mathematical problem mathematics is the closest form of pure logic we have. What's more when you get into University level philosophy and ethics, mathematics is used more and more.
Suppose though that efficiency wasn't their priority?
As far as I can tell you are trying to apply scientific process to morality. That's an argument structure. What you then need is values for your theory to adhere to. Now some go with hedonism, some utilitarianism and so on. But what you have suggested is still only a structure of morality. It isn't a morality in itself as it has no values or "prime premise" as you put it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
Example of your structure using the premise "greatest happiness for the individual". Already been done by most moralists.
If that is the case in your area this is my advice. Leave NOW. Failing that join some philosophy group or something, but at least actively search for people with interesting/different moralities.
Roaring Apathy
Fight the good fight
Not really no. By your logic whether or not a fire will burn your hand if you stick it in there is up to opinion.
Of course, were talking about a much more complex idea and vaguer idea like say defending yourself against terrorists, but even that can be, like ive already made an example of before, objectively reasoned with.
Will they attack? Can they potentially harm us if they attack? Are they willing to cooperate and act peacefully if possible?
If its yes to 1,2, but not 3, then the only rational act you can do is to defend our nation against such terrorists.
If its yes to all, then you can go towards the less defensive action of potential peace which, if fails, switch into defensive positions assuming its a last resort
If no to 1, but yes to 2 and 3, attempt peaceful procedures to avoid any potential future of attack, but assuming that theres no reason to think that the opposing nation will ever attack, which must take into account other factors like convenience of the nation to attack us, incentive, and possible losses of being antagonized by the nation.
And so on and so forth. Really, if you take all factors into account, theres a completely and logically way to go about everything, you just have to take ALL premises and evidence into account, which can be a hassle since there can be tons, but if one goes through the trouble of using such a method, then the action taken can be purely methodical.
Prime premise is just a desire or way of going about things. I think you're confusing it with something that has intrinsic value. Not really, as its sort of like a math problem, the prime premise is the variable in the equation. As for values, not necessary. Neither does social contract theory, as its based purely on the desire to live peacefully and efficiently, and not on any intrinsic value.
I dont really care if tis done by most moralists, rather im trying to come up with a system that we could establish amongst the general population. Shooting it down based upon a small handful of the population that already does follow it is like saying that a generally unpopular video can still be considered popular because its popular amongst a small handful of niche gamers.
You're kind of coming off as a little hostile, bro. The thing of philosophy groups is that really they dont every really get **** done, and as such theyre useless to me. Id rather want to try and do something large scale than discuss things with a small handful of people that just toss around ideas but never really get down to actually implementing them. Might as well be mental masturbation.
The Director
Ancient Trainer
Logic is the extrapolation of data from other sources of data.
Say you put your hand in a fire and it burnt. I would have visual data on the subject. I could extrapolate from that that I would burn too. However...
Problems with data:
How do I know that the fire burnt your hand?
How do I know your hand is burnt?
How do I know that MY hand would burn just because your hand did?
Problems with logic:
How do I know I have extrapolated correctly from the data given?
From the data I could say that if I put my hand in the fire it would burn. But what if the circumstances change? Or the data was wrong?
I can't know for definite that my hand would burn, even IF I had previous experience e.g. how do I know it would burn this time?
How do you know you have taken all factors into account?
How do you know the data is accurate? (this one is the reason most wars start, that and greed)
What happens when you are forced into a stuation where your prime premise is conflicted either way?
And again people do this. Problems occur when data is skewed, or "logic" is incorrect.
When I used the word values I was referring to moral values. e.g. killing is wrong, stealing is wrong etc.
To put in your words. I can't have a morality without a prime premise. I can have a way I would go about that prime premise, but it isn't a moral theory without said premise.
I'm merely pointing out that theories like these have already been produced and there has NEVER been a worldwide or even countrywide morality. People just vary too much. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying in my opinion it's impossible, as all other attempts have failed. And with 6000 years to have done so, if we haven't by now we probably never will. As I said my opinion.
Sorry about that. As for philosophy groups, I think you might want to go into a different subject. Philosophy is ONLY about throwing ideas about. :L
The problem is that although philosophy and scientific process, can give us ways of doing things or solving problems, on a large scale the prime premise will differ so much with different people that it would still lead to moral disagreements, war and so on. And even if the prime premise wasn't in conflict the logical way of going about it could be different.
e.g. Country A has the prime premise of protecting its people. Country B has the same premise. However Country A doesn't KNOW that Country B will stick to that prime premise, so goes to a war with Country B to protect itself. Even if the war contradicts its prime premise Country A thinks that no Country B=no threat to its people.
And that's even if the prime premise's are the same. What if they're different? Say Country A was greedy and wanted more land so invaded Country B.
Oh, and if you aren't trying for world peace but merely trying to make people think logically about they're morals, this is my answer.
A lot of people aren't/can't be scientists. There are a lot of people whose abilities in logic and reasoning are weak, and even if you manage to give evidence or logically wrap rings around them theirs a high percentage chance that the response will be. "Just because." "Well shut up." "You don't understand." "Well it's what God say's."
Or maybe I'm just cynical like that.
A moral quandary I read once.
Is it honorable to attack someone from behind?
Is it Honorable to attack someone from behind who is a better fighter than you?
Is it Honorable to attack someone from behind who is a better fighter than you, who is about to slaughter an entire village of women and children?
Sure it's a slippery slope, but the point is where do you draw the line morally. At what point does your morals waver enough to do that which needs to be done?
I like the Metallica lyric (quoted from someone else) 'To ensure peace you must prepare for war!'
Is it honorable to attack someone from behind?
Is it Honorable to attack someone from behind who is a better fighter than you?
Is it Honorable to attack someone from behind who is a better fighter than you, who is about to slaughter an entire village of women and children?
Sure it's a slippery slope, but the point is where do you draw the line morally. At what point does your morals waver enough to do that which needs to be done?
I like the Metallica lyric (quoted from someone else) 'To ensure peace you must prepare for war!'
Roaring Apathy
Fight the good fight
....You're not seriously arguing that are you?
Have you NEVER heard of deductive reasoning? Not only would it be inefficient to test EVERY possible scenario(well if this guys hand will burn will this other persons hand burn?) but it would stall progression because of the unlikely scenario that something different will happen to a burned object just because its different object, despite being made of the same material.
Of course I understand variables like "heatless fire"(of which the specifics im not sure of but apparently there are certain chemical reactions that create room temperature fires), but in most cases occhams razor takes over and will slap your ****.
Hm, good point. I guess you could make a premise that states "wasting to much time to find all factors when swift action is needed will lead to failure", but it sounds to much like a cop out admittedly.
The only thing i can imagine in this case if my moral theory becomes established is 1) government based research teams to avoid confirmation bias and 2) they must be people that have a good track record of being trust worthy. Of course this wont be entirely accurate, but considering were not talking about hard science here, a decimal difference hardly creates any major errors.
Depends, but generally the only way would be to add another prime premise or alter the current ones existing. Could you give me an example however, to better illustrate my point?
...Okay? Isnt that the same with any other moral theory? Or are you saying it doesnt have any inherent moral value?
Same can be said about social contract theory, which I know Ive brought up more than once, yet its still considered a moral theory, so not sure what you're trying to get at here.
Can you give some sort of source thats shows that any particular nation attempted to establish such a moral theory? What about the factors that played out to make it fail?
No, philosophy is about trying to find the most consistent and rational way of life, regardless of the scale of the philosophy in questions influence. To say its just about throwing ideas around invalidates any reason to really think rationally at all, since it amounts to nothing.
Then wed go by majority premise rule, or perhaps compromise. I dont think most would disagree with a premise like "we value peace and happiness".
While hypothetical, rather improbably as a nation doesnt go to war with another nation because of unreasonable suspicion. Unless you can disprove me otherwise, of course. Also, its not quite the moral theory, since nation a would need an anti thesis to attack in the first place. For example, well use your nations a and be with the same premise. In this case, its to protect their people. However, in order to protect their people, they need something to antagonize their people in the first place in order to protect it. As neither nation has done the antagonizing, neither will go to war based on the moral theory, assuming they stick hard to it.
Then theyd do it. The moral theory doesnt exactly segregate right and wrong, just the best course of action upon the premise. If country a's premise was something along the lines of manifest destiny, then theyd go about doing what they can to implement it, whether or not they where antagonized or potentially in danger in any way, since their premise doesnt dictate that any of their actions be a reaction.
Only because they've been brought up the way they have. Which can be remedied with teaching them rationalization and logic skills from an early age. The people now? Theyyll make it impossible, but the children can and will be the future in that sense. I dont intend for a moral theory like this to be implemented in a life time, mind you, since i know the difficulties of imposing an idea like this, which would be a major culture and moral shock to the people, so the only way to do it right would be through slow integration. And if you ask if the parents would pull their kids out of school to avoid learning such skills, bare in mind it doesnt have to be publicized "elementary schools to implement logic and reasoning curriculum to follow new moral theory". A little under handed, but itll get the job done.
Or maybe I'm just cynical like that.
I tend to be bipolar on the way i feel about people. Sometimes I feel like an altruist that believes in the strength of people, and other times Im like "**** people". makes me wonder if im the only one who thinks like that
TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
You know, I hadn't been thinking of joining this debate, but with a comment like that, I can't help but join. If your new moral theory rejects the concepts of "right" and "wrong," did you forget that you should have said "people won't like it but...", or--as highly inconsistently as possible--did you admit the existence of wrong actions?
Roaring Apathy
Fight the good fight
Considering that I as a person live in a society where people believe in right and wrong and I at one point believed in that idea, its not to much to think that i may use words or express sentiments unconscious of their nuances and contextual interpretations at times, dont you think?
Its like, for example, blaming an atheist for having irrational fears of, say going to hell or the like, despite the fact that he or she doesnt believe in hell, god or the bible, when its likely that such a fear was instilled at a young, impressionable age.
And yes, it happens all the time. A simple google search will show you as such.
Point is, you're not really going to get any where by trying to discredit me by my word choice =/
TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
Well, The renegade, that is why I specifically asked if you forgot to say, "people won't like it but...". To be more accurate, it doesn't get you anywhere to deny the existence of right and wrong while continuing to use words and phrases in your argument which presuppose their existence.
7 tyranitars
Well-Known Member
Right and wrong do exist, but it is a matter or perspective.