WOW! OIS Commentary (spoilers for commentary)

POSTED BY: heb
UPDATED: Saturday, July 17, 2004 05:48
VIEWED: 19844
PAGE 4 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

RADHIL

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Okay, here's a question.

Say I was unashamed to commit murder, say I just don't have a value for human life. Say I recognize that there is no God, and that humanity is one big cosmic joke, (the sum of a series of highly improbably random events that lead to life) and that human life has no intrinsic value. Would it be wrong for me to take a life?

From your perspective.... no. But then, your perspective would be so utterly lacking in order and light as to not even conceive of morality.

From my perspective... you'd be a damned soul.

From an absolute... you'd be a destructive soul. And while there is nothing inherently good or bad about destruction... nothing ever comes from it. Except less existence. So thankfully, from my perspective, your moral system would not be around too long for me to have to deal with.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

JCOBB

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:24 PM

Oh, its not my moral system, its merely me with some theoretical thinking...

Furthermore, I don't have to view destruction in the more common way, I can view it as a state change. Do you consider it destructive when you destroy the billions of bacterium on your body, (both helpful and hurtful) when you bathe? Do you think its destructive when you chew food? (Breaking it down with both physical and chemical forces.)

I mean, ones humanity might tell you that life is important, but isn't that little more then our desire to survive and not as much our inclination twords morality? Furthermore, why is something wrong? Because it is currently believed to be so? If that is the case, do you accept that homosexuality was wrong, (and still is in many areas) and that homosexuals are "sinners"? Or perhaps that blacks are subhuman, or shouldn't be given the same rights as the more typical anglosaxon. If the commonly accepted practices of man are the basis for the morality of the society, and how you hold people accountable then I can't see any way around that. If there is no moral black and white and only gray then can you comfortably place your (quite possibly) narrow interpretation of rightous morality on me? Should I feel guilty because my morality is different then yours?

Quote:
We can conceive of them, of right and wrong. That is enough.

After all, if there is nothing inherently moral, then the morality of everything is what we make of it.

And if my moral system differs from yours, would you be willing to judge me for mine? Would you be willing to be judged for your moral system if it differed from the "norm?" Say societies outlook differed from your own, what then?

I don't care, I'm still free.

STARPILOTGRAINGER

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Okay, here's a question.

Say I was unashamed to commit murder, say I just don't have a value for human life. Say I recognize that there is no God, and that humanity is one big cosmic joke, (the sum of a series of highly improbably random events that lead to life) and that human life has no intrinsic value. Would it be wrong for me to take a life? What if my morality had no qualms with murder, or rape, would it then be acceptable for you to judge me based on this?

It's perfectly acceptable for me to judge you based on that, and I have no problem with doing so. Well, you might not agree, but you're not me, and I'm the one doing the judging.

Quote:

Say society, as a whole, adopted this philosophy, would that make it right? I mean, the majority, I would assume, of us would immediately say that it would be wrong, but why is it wrong?

I think the main problem is not whether or not it's 'right' or 'wrong', but in determining what 'right' or 'wrong' mean. They don't have an absolute meaning in this scenario. But we might define 'right' to mean 'good for society'. Or we might define 'right' to be 'evolutionarily sound, a good strategy to pass on ones genes'. Then we can decide whether or not something is right in that particular context, but we can't judge the value of the context itself (except in terms of other contexts, like utility).

Say we're playing a game of 'Mob Monopoly'. The rules of the game state that if you land on a spot of another player, and you have more than twice the money required to buy it, you can play a card and 'kill' the player owning it (take them out of the game), in an attempt to get a lower price from his heirs. If you fail, you go to jail. Now, you can talk about within the game it's a good strategy to make that move. You can certainly talk about whether it's allowed by the rules. But you still can't talk about whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' until you decide whether you mean 'good strategy' or 'allowed by the rules' by 'right'.

I think that widespread acceptance of murder, rape, etc, is a remarkably poor strategy for a society. It also violates my personal moral code, which is subjective, but that's the best I can say, other than that if you take this path, my morality will require me to act in certain ways to stop it. (There's that old quote from a British general or something in India long ago, that comes to mind and I'm paraphrasing 'It's your custom to burn women to death. It is our custom to hang murderers. You build your pyre, and next to it we will build a gallows. You may follow your custom, and then we shall follow ours'.)

There are certain gray areas where it just makes more sense to say 'I'm not going to judge' in relative morality, but there are others where you have to.

Quote:

Anyways, it just seems odd to me. I suppose, if nothing else, I hope that there is a God. I want there to be something or someone to hold me accountable for my actions if there is an afterlife. (I would like to think this would help me be a better person.)

In truth, I hope there's some sort of benevolent God too. Basically one that more or less shares my morality, but has all the information at hand. I just don't believe it.

But again, with a God you just get down to 'I'm right (or wrong)' because He Says So. I've never found any satisfactory reason why a God, if one exists, must necessarily be one we would judge as moral. Say there's a God, but he finds it the supreme morality to poke people in the eyes with sticks. Everyone who dies and didn't make a regular practice of poking people's eyes with sticks, gets punished (perhaps by the aforementioned stick-poking throughout eternity... it's a good, moral punishment, after all). This God is all powerful, so no one can really argue. Is this God then _right_? I don't know. I think even if Gods are going to judge us and have the power to make their verdicts 'stick', doesn't mean we should not judge them.

All I kno

RADHIL

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Oh, its not my moral system, its merely me with some theoretical thinking...

Aren't we all?

Quote:
Furthermore, I don't have to view destruction in the more common way, I can view it as a state change. Do you consider it destructive when you destroy the billions of bacterium on your body, (both helpful and hurtful) when you bathe? Do you think its destructive when you chew food? (Breaking it down with both physical and chemical forces.)

That it is transformative makes it no less destructive. You can toss something into the sun. Poof, it is destroyed. Yet the sun is constantly using it's fuel, creating energy and forcing it out. Creating and also destroying. One does not subtract from the other.

Now, you can view killing as a state change. But your view is your view, and it is not absolute. If the absolute was purely physical, then yes, you're doing the fertilizer trade a great service. It's not. The absolute includes the mental, the sentience that you have destroyed, which is not reformed. The absolute includes the order and structure of the body that you have broken down, which is not recreated. If your view wishes it right, then it is right. It is still never other than destruction. And ultimately, self-destructive.

Quote:
*snipping the flamebait, skipping to the meat*
And if my moral system differs from yours, would you be willing to judge me for mine?

Yes.

Quote:
Would you be willing to be judged for your moral system if it differed from the "norm?"

Yes. We wouldn't be having this bizarre chat otherwise.

Quote:
Say societies outlook differed from your own, what then?

I'd argue. I'd convince. I'd think, absorb their outlook into mine, reject what I find as flawed from mine and theirs, incorporate what I found sound. Form my morality anew, as best I could, and get others to do the same.

Kinda like right here.

The sig kinda sums it up.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

JCOBB

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by StarPilotGrainger:

Below

Quote:
It's perfectly acceptable for me to judge you based on that, and I have no problem with doing so. Well, you might not agree, but you're not me, and I'm the one doing the judging.

Fair enough, I suppose, until you are the one being judged because you don't hold a common morality of society.

Quote:
I think that widespread acceptance of murder, rape, etc, is a remarkably poor strategy for a society.

Maybe for society, but why is society the end-all be-all? Non society based animals rape, and "murder" and yet they survive, and often thrive. Even very secular and society orientated animals, (insects) can have massive wars with each other, (ants are incredibly territorial, if I remember correctly, and wars between ants is fairly common). It seems to me that a society is nothing more then a set interaction amongst beings, and in this case humans. Perhaps it would be counter productive to the current society, but a new society could easily spring up from another, seperate, moral code.

Quote:
There's that old quote from a British general or something in India long ago...

Perhaps he could say that with impugnity as he was the overwhelming force in the area. What if a force came into your area, said that you could punish criminals, but in doing so all judges and juries would be summarily executed. The reaction maybe completely different when you are the one on the recieving end.

Quote:
But again, with a God you just get down to 'I'm right (or wrong)' because He Says So. I've never found any satisfactory reason why a God, if one exists, must necessarily be one we would judge as moral.

This is a fairly simple answer, (at least for me). If there is a God, then by definition it can be assumed that he is always right, regardless. A morality contrary to God is godless, and thus wrong. If said God exists then things become much simpler. You have an aribiter that is indisputably right on all accounts.

Quote:
Now, you can view killing as a state change. But your view is your view, and it is not absolute. If the absolute was purely physical, then yes, you're doing the fertilizer trade a great service. It's not. The absolute includes the mental, the sentience that you have destroyed, which is not reformed. The absolute includes the order and structure of the body that you have broken down, which is not recreated. If your view wishes it right, then it is right. It is still never other than destruction. And ultimately, self-destructive.

Matter can not be created nor destroyed. End of story. Matter can undergo state changes. You determine something to be destructive because you are viewing it from a very general perspective. Your actions could very easily be described as destructive from anothers perspective, (the bacterium argument). From my experience it ends up being entirely about perspective.

By the way, sorry that you thought my post was flamebait, Radhil, that most definately was not the purpose.

Quote:
I'd argue. I'd convince. I'd think, absorb their outlook into mine, reject what I find as flawed from mine and theirs, incorporate what I found sound. Form my morality anew, as best I could, and get others to do the same.

Would you stop your actions that society deemed as immoral if you, after careful examination, didn't find them to be wrong?

I don't care, I'm still free.

STARPILOTGRAINGER

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:

Fair enough, I suppose, until you are the one being judged because you don't hold a common morality of society.

Yep. But then it's my responsibility to try to make society to agree with me, or I have to accept that they'll judge me (though I can try to escape their judgement in various ways).

It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.

Quote:

Perhaps for society, but why is society the end-all be-all? Non society based animals rape, and "murder" and yet they survive, and often thrive. Even very secular and society orientated animals, (insects) can have massive wars with each other, (ants are incredibly territorial, if I remember correctly, and wars between ants is fairly common). It seems to me that a society is nothing more then a set interaction amongst beings, and in this case humans. Perhaps it would be counter productive to the current society, but a new society could easily spring up from another, seperate, moral code.

Society shouldn't necessarily be the end all and be all. But it's one possible way of defining 'what is right?' And, since the society here is the one deciding what is right, deciding based on what is good for the society is a decent place to start. From an evolutionary standpoint, societies which don't keep in mind what is good for them will likely not survive and be replaced by other societies which do. Let's say there is no group morality at all, and each individual decides without thinking, at all, of anyone outside himself. Sure, he could decide it's 'right' to shoot himself in the head. But once he's done that, he's no longer in the arena for making decisions, so his opinions don't matter anymore, and those that decide that shooting yourself in the head is 'wrong' will be the only ones left making the decisions.

Quote:

Perhaps he could say that with impugnity as he was the overwhelming force in the area. What if a force came into your area, said that you could punish criminals, but in doing so all judges and juries would be summarily executed. The reaction maybe completely different when you are the one on the recieving end.

Of course. I never said it was a perfect system.
In fact, it's extremely imperfect.

I just don't think it's that worse off than the alternative. I don't think the problems with morality are solvable on either end, whether you posit a God or not. Some people just find it easier to accept the problems that are brought up when you have a God.

Quote:
This is a fairly simple answer, (at least for me). If there is a God, then by definition it can be assumed that he is always right, regardless. A morality contrary to God is godless, and thus wrong. If said God exists then things become much simpler. You have an aribiter that is indisputably right on all accounts.

_Only_ because we defined it such. Sorry, I don't buy that. If we decide 'right' is 'whatever the majority decides is right', we've got the exact same problems. Exactly. If the majority decides killing is right, it's right. If they decide the next day that it's wrong, it's wrong. (A God could change its mind too). All that a God gets you is someone who can always back up its whims no matter how painful it may be to everyone else (and, granted, if we posit omniscience, one who can't be incorrect about whether the person did the 'wrong' they've been accused of). At least with a relative morality there can be checks and balances, as ideas of right and wrong which just don't _work_ will tend to be marginalized.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

JCOBB

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:18 PM

Well, thats assuming that God wouldn't accept a certain degree of moral grey. God can be always right and still be able to accept that we will not always be. Perhaps God accepts and embraces relative morality. Who knows?

As per whether or not a God can change his/her/its mind, I am not comfortable postulating either way. I don't know if I can comfortably dictate what a God can or can't do.

I don't care, I'm still free.

RADHIL

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:35 PM

Quote:
Matter can not be created nor destroyed. End of story. Matter can undergo state changes. You determine something to be destructive because you are viewing it from a very general perspective. Your actions could very easily be described as destructive from anothers perspective, (the bacterium argument). From my experience it ends up being entirely about perspective.

The best general perspective is the global one, and is as close as I can get to shedding perspective completely. Thus it serves as a good baseline to toss and break my opinions against.

As for bacterium... there is no sentience, and no massive structure as compared to a human (unless you have a massive walking colony with tentacles, a phenomenon my refridgerator is working on producing). Destruction on that scale can therefore be more equated with a state change. Not quite, but far closer. Take note that it's still something you'd want to avoid - many bacteria form part of a complex ecological structure, and can be helpful. I used to dump a certain culture of bacteria into my fishtank, and they kept my fishies healthy while the water slowly stagnated between replacements. A full removal of bacteria from our bodies would render us vulnerable to innumerable diseases. But in general, I'm not gonna worry about stepping on one. That's the best I can do.

Quote:
By the way, sorry that you thought my post was flamebait, Radhil, that most definately was not the purpose.

I know it wasn't the purpose, but getting bogged down in the semantics of modern and elder day racism would've been too easy. I was far more interested in the overbearing conversation.

Quote:
Would you stop your actions that society deemed as immoral if you, after careful examination, didn't find them to be wrong?

*chuckle* It's your sig that says "I don't care, I'm still free", isn't it? 'Course not. Freedom in a nutshell there - believe what others don't.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

MAUGWAI

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:47 PM

I think there is something besides religion that keeps our morality in check.

James Baldwin one wrote, "Men pay for their crimes by the lives which they lead." That is so true if you look around you. I've never met a mean person who wasn't miserable. Look at Jayne. Look how nervous and guilty he felt over betraying Simon and River. And how happy he was to be the hero in Jaynestown, only to feel horribly guilty when his "heroics" caused an innocent death.

Then look at Kaylee. She's always happy because she always has the best intentions. This isn't an absolute, of course. I'm sure there are psychos who love to kill people, but even there it's a warped sense of joy.

I guess this all boils down to the feeling we get when our conscience takes over.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

JCOBB

Monday, June 21, 2004 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

Below

Quote:
The best general perspective is the global one, and is as close as I can get to shedding perspective completely. Thus it serves as a good baseline to toss and break my opinions against.

The most global perspective will tell you that individuals, and indeed humanity as a whole is irrelevent. In a few billion, (or is it million, I keep forgetting) the sun will nova and man kind will be dead and gone. (If we remain here anyways.) Even if it is possible to maintain our civilization, (read Manifld Time for some interesting theories)I doubt we can last more then a few million years. In a trillion years, (I would estimate VERY liberally) whatever impact man can have made will be gone. Be it by our own hands or something else entirely. My actions, or yours, are of no consequence to the universe, even if morals were relevent.

Quote:
As for bacterium... there is no sentience, and no massive structure as compared to a human (unless you have a massive walking colony with tentacles, a phenomenon my refridgerator is working on producing).

Life, is life, is life. Sentience is irrelevent. You are being destructive, according to our previous discussions, destroying the trillions and trillions of bacterium you kill during the period of your existance, just as you are if you kill a human.

Now, personally, I don't think destruction is a negative or a positive. "Destruction," as I have said before, is a change of state. The individual atom cares not whether or not it undergoes alpha, or beta, or gamma decay, the strings of atoms making up molecules doesn't have any agenda other then, perhaps, maintaining its bonds, or forming other bonds, if it happens to be interrupted it doesn't feel depression, it changes and adapts.

Quote:
*chuckle* It's your sig that says "I don't care, I'm still free", isn't it? 'Course not. Freedom in a nutshell there - believe what others don't.

My sig is not your own.

And in that case one must wonder of Mr. Manson is sitting back having a good chuckle, and who's to say he's wrong for doing it? It could just as easily be me in five years if the winds of change come.

Quote:
I think there is something besides religion that keeps our morality in check.

Karma? I know of serial killers who have no remorse for their actions, or people that live good lives that are terribly miserable all the time.

I don't care, I'm still free.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE