Page 7 of 7 « First<34567
Topic Options
#38086 - 04/25/10 03:09 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

You are wrong my friend. There is nowhere said that to be moral you have to adhere to and believe in universal and eternal moral principles. Some authors believe in it and they try to make a case for their views. Other don’t and they try to make a case for their view. Nowhere does it say anything about morals having to be objective. Nietzsche proclaimed that we should reevaluate all values. This is also a sign of a relative morality and an individual one as opposed to absolute morality and collective. This is all about what we consider to be good or bad, true or untrue or even good or evil.

If we are to take the LaVeyan approach “what is right is what I like and what is wrong is what I don’t like” (the LaVeyan moral code foundation) you certainly fit in. You don’t like anyone trying to kill your mother, you don’t like a political system that reduces the free market and personal liberty and you like the thought that capitalism proved the best life for the most people (very utilitarian of you) etc. Hence these would be your “rights” in the debate of right and wrong.

 Quote:

Human nature is the same time and time again, that's what makes it our nature. Having my own wants and needs is not a moral.


It is the foundation of your values (and you do have values) and these are the foundations of your morals.

 Quote:

I am indeed amoral because decisions are not made based on right or wrong. There is no such thing. You can say that I have my own definition of right and wrong, but that is you continuing to think in this restrictive paradigm.


Again where does it say morals have to be collective, objective and absolute? Your rights and wrongs, your definitions, are the basis of your own personal morality. It’s not harder than that and I don’t restrict a paradigm because the paradigm never said morals can’t be personal and subjective. That is also why we define morals differently. There is such a thing as moral relativism. You should look it up. [Again the Wikipedia entry is a quite nice one for beginners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism ]

Top
#38109 - 04/26/10 06:22 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
TheInsane,
I guess if values make morals, then sure, I have morals.
I know about moral relativism but I find it to be quite flaky and self-contradicting(though I will read up on it after this post if I am indeed misunderstanding it).

That said, I have to wonder, what would be amoral? What if I were to abandon, say, all principles, and do things that entirely contradicted themselves on any conceivable scale? Like, one day I do what I want, and the next, I do things I don't want(would I still have wanted to do them)? I walk into a ghetto at night and get robbed, then the next day I kill a best friend. How might I be amoral under this definition of morality? It would have to be inconsistent, but then, making decisions based on randomness might itself be the moral of ridiculous spontaneity.
So maybe it would have to be a little consistent for limited amounts of time, but then inconsistent. It might involve becoming subservient to another person, but then that would have to be limited too, as my moral would just be whatever they wanted.

It seems that to have morals there have to be absolutes, and the only one that I hold as absolute is rationality in its ability to help me survive and achieve happiness.

In regards to capitalism, I might add that it is the only form of utilitarianism that does not require you to adhere to utilitarianism. As in, doing what I want will necessitate paying people the amount of money they require to sell me something, and doing otherwise makes it likely I will suffer more greatly in the long term for the consequences. I can pursue whatever I want without regard for others and this will naturally benefit others with whom I interact.

You made the point earlier that businesses indeed have little incentive to be environmentally aware. But the burden of awareness is then passed on to me as the consumer, and I personally might not have an alternative to supporting the wasteful companies that hurt the environment. Like if I cannot afford a hybrid, how might I avoid the damage that oil causes?

And on this note, the methane released by rudiments(cows and livestock that fart methane) is severely more detrimental than the entire auto industry(at least in the US if not world wide) in terms of climate change. Shall I be a vegetarian, or shall we stop with the nonsense of blaming cars when anyone who likes cheeseburgers is clearly a greater threat?

I do want and would support any viable solution, but the reason that people don't value other things more than money, the reason they are often so apathetic towards taking action, is because Capitalism is a system that works off of utilizing people's self interest. Until a solution is provided in alignment with my self interest, it will be infinitely less likely that I go out of my way to solve a problem even as big as global catastrophe. Blaming self interest is immature. Not acknowledging people's self interest as a natural tool, one that can be used for or against a solution, is just immature and idealistic. If people value money so much, make the solution something we can easily buy into. It's worked so far as people buy more and more goods made from recycled materials, and its potential is unlimited if one takes capitalism into account.

I mean, look at LiveStrong. People bought 4 bracelets just to support cancer and a growing fashion trend. I work at a shoe store that sells a LiveStrong version of a running shoe. People love a cause if it makes financial sense.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38118 - 04/26/10 07:00 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680
 Quote:
That said, I have to wonder, what would be amoral?
. . . It seems that to have morals there have to be absolutes. . .


As I said before this is no necessity for morals to exist as a linguistic category. Now some authors claim there are absolute morals but that’s quite another discussion.
Funny thing is I used to call myself an amoralist but I regarded it, like you, as a denial only of objective values. I have come to believe however that using the word amoral does miss the target since it also implies that on have no morals whatsoever. And I do believe all humans have that and I did even when I myself used the term amoralist.
I do agree that the world I amoral – there are no objective values – I also think that man can’t really live without creating values and thus create some kind of moral system. I am not a huge fan of Ayn Rand but I do like parts of her work and Id like to recommend an essay she wrote called “selfishness without a self”. I’m not saying I totally agree with her in this case either but she makes a few good points: http://freedomkeys.com/withoutaself.htm

 Quote:

And on this note, the methane released by rudiments(cows and livestock that fart methane) is severely more detrimental than the entire auto industry(at least in the US if not world wide) in terms of climate change. Shall I be a vegetarian, or shall we stop with the nonsense of blaming cars when anyone who likes cheeseburgers is clearly a greater threat?


I don’t think one can compare eating a cheeseburger to taking a drive with a car. I don’t think the amount of damage they do procentually are equal. However you are right, it does seem like the cows produce a lot of unhealthy gases \:\) While I’m at it I also dislike the treatment of animals that do eventually end up on our tables. I can’t imagine how people can work in some of these environments where animals are crammed into tight spaces almost never seeing the sun.

 Quote:
I do want and would support any viable solution, but the reason that people don't value other things more than money, the reason they are often so apathetic towards taking action, is because Capitalism is a system that works off of utilizing people's self interest.


This is probably true to an extent. Although of course I believe the market creates a lot of peoples so called “self interests”. This is the problem really. Everything is commercialism. To be honest this is probably the aspect I should have focused on all along in this debate. It is commercialism that is my main problem with capitalism as it is happening today.

 Quote:
Blaming self interest is immature. Not acknowledging people's self interest as a natural tool, one that can be used for or against a solution, is just immature and idealistic. If people value money so much, make the solution something we can easily buy into.


I never denied peoples self interest as tools for or against a solution. I do question people’s ability to think long term and I do think most people, probably me included to some extent, can’t ever escape commercialism that created “unnecessary needs” in people continuing to exploit a lot of the raw materials for example. In general people tend to be stupid and why would I support a system that needs to sell and idea to the people (with risk of failure) instead of a system that would be able to actually do something about it?

Overall though it seems like we both rehash a lot of out opinions so I’m not sure how much more this debate will bring (unless you have some new angles to it) \:\/

Top
#38567 - 05/15/10 07:58 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Sycorax Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 6
Loc: Dublin, Ireland
A though one to answer, because all have its pro's and con's. I would go for a near totalitarian State without a social safety net for the social and biological weak. But one that still gives its citizens the freedom to develope artistically and where there is a healthy form of capitalism that enables growth and wealth.
_________________________
~Behind every kiss a potential Judas~

Top
Page 7 of 7 « First<34567


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.021 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 17 queries. Zlib compression disabled.