lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Morality
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-13-2008, 03:39 PM   #41
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
To your first point, it still presents a dilemma (moral or otherwise) in that a system will be chosen for the purposes of order or in asserting a universal system. Dilemma being which one (of however many) gets picked and how it will impact all affected.

To your second point, we're pretty much in agreement. Whether your absolute system is "correct" or not, it is in place and doesn't equivocate. The relativist refuses to be nailed down on anything and thus approves (by default if nothing else) all things.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-13-2008, 04:20 PM   #42
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Easy, the point is that there may be competing sets of first principles that underly competing morality systems. You trumpet an empathy based system here, but anyone could pick a whole other series of issues to start from. One could choose beauty, truth, efficiency, ad nauseam. You might not be able to relate to those systems, but (like spider) you don't show how those systems are invalid, rather that you are fixated on concepts of pain in constructing your system of absolute morality.
Err, what? Why do *I* have to show preemptively that *your* silly ideas are invalid when you didn't even show at least one serious attempt to prove them to be valid?

There is a reason why it is empathy that is used and not beauty, or whatever poppycock you'd like to submit here for whatever reasons as "tool" to "find" moral.

Spider explained how he defines morality and why he thinks using empathy is a valid method find this morality, I can do the same if you'd like to.
Mind to explain how beauty, truth, efficiency, w/e are valid "methods" to find a course of action that is moral, and maybe what this morality means which you find using beauty?


Quote:
Here you seem to be intentionally confusing things. Just because I want to call blue red, doesn't make it so. Things can be percieved objectively, even given limitations. Maybe I'm color blind, but I know the order of traffic lights is an alternative system of telling me when to stop/wait/go. Once everyone is basically on the same page, no matter what personal affectations you wish to introduce to the equation, things can then be perceived objectively. It's more often the hows and whys, rather than the whats, that cause much of the consternation.
This is leading nowhere, and even less it shows in any way that objective morality is relative.

Quote:
Interesting. How do you explain the amoral/immoral person? Most of whom either think that morality is a fiction or who actually revel in doing evil things.
Again, he who doesn't want to be moral simply isn't.



Last edited by Ray Jones; 03-13-2008 at 04:50 PM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-13-2008, 06:49 PM   #43
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Well, Ray, half the time it's hard to follow your train of thought b/c it's so awkwardly worded. I know what spider thought, so your reproducing it here is just pointless repitition. You were apparently once again answering a question that wasn't asked. You have to show that other moralities are baseless since you're asserting that yours, however *silly*, is essentially THE correct one (not one of many possible ones that might be internally consistent). The problem that he ran into, and that you haven't remotely solved here, is showing why your empathic based system is THE system, not merely one that can be applied universally. He basically argued that his empathic system was self evidently THE universal system (not merely one that COULD be applied) but failed--as have you--to show that it truly is. Your statements at the end of that post are completely nonsensical. Because people arrive at a decision they think is moral doesn't make it objective b/c you think their processes are somehow the same. You appear to be throwing around the word objectively a little too loosely here. Hell, by that line, even subjective decisions have objectives in mind and must apparently be considered objective.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2008, 01:35 AM   #44
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Ray, if I use truth as the defining basis for morality instead of empathy, it alters some of the decisions I could make--there are situations where being truthful is not always the empathetic choice, but it could still be the right choice to make.

I'd also like to know how empathy, which is fundamentally based on how someone feels subjectively, can be the basis for an objective system. Some people are more empathic than others, and at best all you could do is come up with a consensus on what most people feel is the best empathic response--but that wouldn't make it universally 'right'. If you base your system on what causes the least distress, how are you going to handle masochists or sadists? It causes the sadist far more distress not to cause pain. The masochist is in distress unless he's receiving pain. Extreme examples to be sure, but those problems crop up with an empathy based system.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2008, 05:29 AM   #45
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Well, Ray, half the time it's hard to follow your train of thought b/c it's so awkwardly worded.
This might also be due to the fact that my thought of train is hard to follow when you focus on twisting words instead and stumble over your own creations then.

Quote:
I know what spider thought, so your reproducing it here is just pointless repitition.
This is a thread on the topic of morality, and yours in the Chambers is too. I thought introducing some of its ideas here would be somewhat contributive, because in case you might not notice, there are others who do not know about your thread in the Chambers, so chances are I did not do it to annoy *you* with pointless repetition.

Quote:
You were apparently once again answering a question that wasn't asked.
Which question? Why you cannot use beauty instead of empathy? Firstly, I explained why I don't need to answer it, and secondly, please, PLEASE, think for yourself.

Quote:
You have to show that other moralities are baseless since you're asserting that yours, however *silly*, is essentially THE correct one (not one of many possible ones that might be internally consistent).
I never said it is THE correct one. N-e-v-e-r. In fact I said I would know there are a lot other moral systems working and I don't want to render any of them invalid. I just said I think it is also a good way to determine morality of an action.

Quote:
The problem that he ran into, and that you haven't remotely solved here, is showing why your empathic based system is THE system, not merely one that can be applied universally.
Again, I'm not proposing it as THE system, merely as an objective one that can be universally applied. Hm. Hm. So far you now jumped from deeming it subjective in any possible way to accusing me of proposing it as THE moral system, so I must prove it.

Yet you left out to explain how you want to use "beauty" to maintain an objective moral system, what you said would be an equal alternative to empathy.

And you know what: you simply can't. All you did is you used this trying to trick me to dive into nonsensical rhetoric about why you can't use your "example". Semi-optimal attempt.

Quote:
Your statements at the end of that post are completely nonsensical.
I don't think so. It makes as much sense as your question how I would explain immoral persons.

Quote:
Because people arrive at a decision they think is moral doesn't make it objective b/c you think their processes are somehow the same.
You seem to be completely missing the point. It's not about what people think is moral.

Quote:
You appear to be throwing around the word objectively a little too loosely here. Hell, by that line, even subjective decisions have objectives in mind and must apparently be considered objective.
I didn't throw anything. So far I "presented" an idea, you tried to **** it whatever way, but failed blatantly.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Ray, if I use truth as the defining basis for morality instead of empathy, it alters some of the decisions I could make--there are situations where being truthful is not always the empathetic choice, but it could still be the right choice to make.
But you don't use empathy to define morality. Just because you attempt to use empathy doesn't make your actions moral. Regardless of any morality you use empathy to determine how your action is going to influence someone else. You can't use truth to do that, can you?

Quote:
I'd also like to know how empathy, which is fundamentally based on how someone feels subjectively, can be the basis for an objective system. Some people are more empathic than others, and at best all you could do is come up with a consensus on what most people feel is the best empathic response--but that wouldn't make it universally 'right'.
The idea is that the quality of your empathy is directly connected to your ability to act moral.

Quote:
If you base your system on what causes the least distress, how are you going to handle masochists or sadists? It causes the sadist far more distress not to cause pain.
The moral thing to do is not causing distress to others. It is not immoral to cause distress to yourself. When the sadist uses empathy he will find that when he inflicts pain to someone non-masochistic, it will cause them distress. If not, he's is unable to act moral in that case. In case you're into pain, it'd be a moral act of you when you let him hurt you. He's acting moral too, since his action doesn't cause you any distress. You don't act immoral if you don't let him hurt you simply because your not into pain. You'd act immoral if you don't let him hurt you with the intention to cause him distress.

Quote:
The masochist is in distress unless he's receiving pain.
When the masochist wants to be hurt, it'd not be immoral if you do so. (in consensus with his likings, that is) It is immoral for the masochist to force someone to hurt him when that someone doesn't feel comfortable doing so (=distress). It is not immoral not to do anything to the masochist then. It is immoral when you're not going to hurt the masochist with the intention to cause him distress.

So, if you, in any of both cases, intent to cause any distress, you're acting immoral, regardless whether you're into S/M or not.

Quote:
Extreme examples to be sure, but those problems crop up with an empathy based system.
No one said it's easy. It's working pretty well though.

How would the sadist/masochist scenario work for let's say Christian morality?



Last edited by Ray Jones; 03-14-2008 at 09:53 AM. Reason: limiting Jae's distress
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2008, 09:03 AM   #46
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,765
Current Game: KotOR II
Which Christian morality?

I'll write a fuller response when I have a minute.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2008, 09:09 AM   #47
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
I'd like to nip in the bud right now the tendency for this subject to get caustic. Focus on the talking about the ideas and not saying or implying 'you're an idiot for thinking this'. I don't want nasty insinuations to develop here.

Quote:
Your statements at the end of that post are completely nonsensical.
There are much better ways to word this, if it needs to be said at all.
Quote:
All you did is you used this trying to bait me into nonsensical rhetoric about why you can't use your "example". Fail.
If you think it's baiting, then please report the post instead of making a comment like 'Fail.'


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2008, 09:50 AM   #48
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
No, Jae. Not baiting. Baiting. As in "no need to involve report buttons".


I rephrased, however. ;


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2008, 01:40 PM   #49
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
"But why should I be moral?" If you're asking that question, you're not interested in morality. You're interested in the material benefit of your acting morally...
Hey, Samuel Dravis. Two questions, since, erm, you seem to be on the side of there being some sort of objective moral, or at least creating a moral system by which you can evaulate moral systems. I think. This debate is a tad confusing.

1) I was going to ask you why I should be moral, but then you state that I am merely interested in the material beneift of me acting morally. Which may be true.

So, let us start. What is the material benieft of me acting morally? Why should I do something moral when it may be in my best interest of me not to be moral?

2) Also, let us suppose we have a secular moral system, and I break it. Now, in a religious moral system, I can ask for forgiveness to the Intelligent Designer/God/Gods/etc., and volia, everything is right again. But I broke the secular moral system, and therefore, I would be immoral unless I set it right. But I can't set it right, see, because to my knowledge, the secular moral system, has no redemeption mechanism. I cannot pray to the Kantian god after I made an innocent mistake and lied in order to save someone's life (as lying is morally wrong).

So, basically, how do I redeem myself in a secular moral system? Is it possible to be redeemed? Or are you cursed forever?


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2008, 02:49 PM   #50
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Why ask for forgiveness? Anyway you are deemed to live with the knowledge about what you've done, and hopefully you learn for your future. No need to go somewhere to get redemption. I case you are a man of high moral, you're not interested in doing an "immoral mistake" twice.

*not Samuel*


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2008, 03:37 PM   #51
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
So, let us start. What is the material benefit of me acting morally? Why should I do something moral when it may be in my best interest of me not to be moral?
It's just things like this: it may be immediately in your interest to steal something, and you might be able to get away with it at the time. However, if you do steal, people might find you to be a thief later on and that would impact your ability to do other things that you might want to do (prison, barring you from voting, etc).

Quote:
2) Also, let us suppose we have a secular moral system, and I break it. Now, in a religious moral system, I can ask for forgiveness to the Intelligent Designer/God/Gods/etc., and volia, everything is right again. But I broke the secular moral system, and therefore, I would be immoral unless I set it right. But I can't set it right, see, because to my knowledge, the secular moral system, has no redemption mechanism. I cannot pray to the Kantian god after I made an innocent mistake and lied in order to save someone's life (as lying is morally wrong).

So, basically, how do I redeem myself in a secular moral system? Is it possible to be redeemed? Or are you cursed forever?
Like Ray says, you can't undo what has been done. Your past actions are fixed, and nothing will erase mistakes that have been made... the interesting part is, you're your own judge here. You're only as cursed as much as you follow Kantian morality. Of course, this is no different than religious belief - atheists are completely unconcerned about someone telling them they'll burn in hell - but that applies to any moral system. Some people simply don't care.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-15-2008, 03:14 AM   #52
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
It's just things like this: it may be immediately in your interest to steal something, and you might be able to get away with it at the time. However, if you do steal, people might find you to be a thief later on and that would impact your ability to do other things that you might want to do (prison, barring you from voting, etc).
But what would happen if the 'people' approve me of being a thief? Say, I am a person who is called upon by my people to rob from outsiders? And that if I don't, or worse yet, speak out against it, I would basically lose my rights. But if I do rob from outsiders, I would be honored.

This is actually going to be a big problem. If people are motivated to follow the rules that society has set down in order to avoid punishment and to gain their sastification, then it could lead to the society doing something another society may see as immoral. I just want to see how you would handle it, altough, erm, I do think I can foresee your answer...

Anyway, the thing is, we aren't discussing adding in a punishment system for the morality yet. The punishment system get added in to ENFORCE the morality code already approved by the people. What I am wondering is why do the population even think they need a morality system? Once society get a consesus about which morality to follow can they then start enforcing it, but until then, what can cause each individual to submit to this morality and obey its enforcing mechanism?


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-16-2008, 01:43 PM   #53
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
But what would happen if the 'people' approve me of being a thief? Say, I am a person who is called upon by my people to rob from outsiders? And that if I don't, or worse yet, speak out against it, I would basically lose my rights. But if I do rob from outsiders, I would be honored.
Well, then there just wouldn't be any social deterrent for stealing.

Quote:
This is actually going to be a big problem. If people are motivated to follow the rules that society has set down in order to avoid punishment and to gain their satisfaction, then it could lead to the society doing something another society may see as immoral. I just want to see how you would handle it, although, erm, I do think I can foresee your answer...
It could be a source of conflict between the two societies, but it's not a problem with the universal application any moral rules. The western world places a great deal of emphasis on original content in written papers (avoids plagiarism like the plague). Not all societies are like that, though, and some find it acceptable to plagiarize-- but that doesn't mean that the arguments we can make about how plagiarism is bad are invalid.

Quote:
Anyway, the thing is, we aren't discussing adding in a punishment system for the morality yet. The punishment system get added in to ENFORCE the morality code already approved by the people. What I am wondering is why do the population even think they need a morality system? Once society get a consensus about which morality to follow can they then start enforcing it, but until then, what can cause each individual to submit to this morality and obey its enforcing mechanism?
Many things, I suppose. What caused me to have my (slight! ) accent? Why do I call any type of soda "coke"? Acquiring a sense of morality, a conscience, is not like putting on a set of clothes, where you can pick and choose which ones you like best. Before Kant reasoned out his moral system, he knew the kind of thing he was looking for...


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 03-16-2008 at 05:11 PM. Reason: er, fixed quote
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-17-2008, 11:53 AM   #54
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
It could be a source of conflict between the two societies, but it's not a problem with the universal application any moral rules. The western world places a great deal of emphasis on original content in written papers (avoids plagiarism like the plague). Not all societies are like that, though, and some find it acceptable to plagiarize-- but that doesn't mean that the arguments we can make about how plagiarism is bad are invalid.
What it does mean however is that you cannot enforce that moral standard onto that other society, meaning the other society can still plagarize and commit great wrongs. If you believe in a universal moral rule, you have to enforce that rule UNIVERSALLY. And that cannot truly be done with that second society who has a seperate rule.

If you cannot enforce that rule in a universal manner, then it's almost a 'suggestion'. You are going to have to rely on your arguments, but words are cheap. It is actions that decide. And if you do nothing to enforce a universal law, well, aren't you basically breaking the universal law yourself? By letting someone plagarize (through action or inaction), aren't you responsible for their plagarism as well?

Would you be seen as breaking your universal moral law if you merely making arguments to stop plagarism that fall on deaf ears instead of taking more 'forceful' actions that would in fact stop plagarism?


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-17-2008, 12:49 PM   #55
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
What it does mean however is that you cannot enforce that moral standard onto that other society, meaning the other society can still plagiarize and commit great wrongs. If you believe in a universal moral rule, you have to enforce that rule UNIVERSALLY. And that cannot truly be done with that second society who has a separate rule.
Cannot? I don't think I would go that far. If history has shown anything, it is that people most certainly can enforce their moral codes on other societies. And they have.

Also, the enforcement of a universal moral rule has absolutely no bearing on whether that rule has been broken or not; you can apply a rule without having to enforce it.

Quote:
If you cannot enforce that rule in a universal manner, then it's almost a 'suggestion'. You are going to have to rely on your arguments, but words are cheap.
An absolute moral judgement is not a suggestion, it is a description. If the person you're talking to accepts the meaning of your words, then they must also accept the judgment they imply.

Quote:
It is actions that decide. And if you do nothing to enforce a universal law, well, aren't you basically breaking the universal law yourself? By letting someone plagiarize (through action or inaction), aren't you responsible for their plagiarism as well?
But don't we act? I don't plagiarize nor have I helped people do so. I think it's perfectly reasonable to give people who plagiarize a big fat F, or even harsher punishments if the situation warrants. There was a big furor in academic circles a while back over some people from the middle east plagiarizing large portions of their papers and passing it off as their own. Isn't acting outraged doing something? Isn't not trusting those universities as much anymore doing something? For I do think that their actions have resulted in real consequences for both the school and the people who did the deed.

Why don't we force them to be honest? Go over there, force them to comply with strict regulations, check every paper, etc. Maybe the same reason you ask someone nicely to do something. Maybe the same reason we would deny them the ability to do the same to us. And maybe, just maybe, we have actually already done all the 'forcing' we need to. If the university recognizes plagiarism as a problem and starts to work on fixing it, haven't we accomplished what we wanted to?

Quote:
Would you be seen as breaking your universal moral law if you merely making arguments to stop plagiarism that fall on deaf ears instead of taking more 'forceful' actions that would in fact stop plagiarism?
I don't think that is necessarily so. There are other rules at work here as well; for example, we value our internal affairs as being ours, and no one elses, and we are willing to accept that others have the same rights. Perhaps a good solution is: tell them to either do it our way, with no plagiarism, or we just don't let them publish their papers in the leading journals.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-17-2008, 01:29 PM   #56
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
Cannot? I don't think I would go that far. If history has shown anything, it is that people most certainly can enforce their moral codes on other societies. And they have.

Also, the enforcement of a universal moral rule has absolutely no bearing on whether that rule has been broken or not; you can apply a rule without having to enforce it.
It is true, but I was assuming however a society that tolerates another society's existence that has a different view. The invasion of one society by another society would mean that the second society would be destroyed, and just one society rules over all.

Quote:
An absolute moral judgement is not a suggestion, it is a description. If the person you're talking to accepts the meaning of your words, then they must also accept the judgment they imply.
Okay.

Quote:
But don't we act? I don't plagiarize nor have I helped people do so. I think it's perfectly reasonable to give people who plagiarize a big fat F, or even harsher punishments if the situation warrants. There was a big furor in academic circles a while back over some people from the middle east plagiarizing large portions of their papers and passing it off as their own. Isn't acting outraged doing something? Isn't not trusting those universities as much anymore doing something? For I do think that their actions have resulted in real consequences for both the school and the people who did the deed.
I heard of that situation. I actually think that those people in Turkey, I believe, claimed that they were being framed, and their works were in fact original, that the only things that may be seen as 'borrowing' would be the Intro and the Conclusion, the actual experiment was not copied. Even then, according to that same article, one professor stated that those people might have plagrized not becuase they didn't know the material, but because they couldn't write English correctly, and so had to borrow English words.

Still, regardless of the truth of the matter, the people in Turkey were in fact punished for that crime, and got expelled from the universty.

...As for the actions, feeling outraged does sound too cheap, and it doesn't seem like a good detterent. What happens if we are 'maxed out' by our outrage? What if there are thousands upon thousands of moral violations out there? If we present every single moral violation to me, I may either drive myself insane due to the anger, or just express resigination, or even only focus on one or two violations, and not care about 'lesser' crimes.

((I guess I focus more on enforcement of a moral code rather than the actual moral code itself. I'm betting it's part of my moral system that if you got some sort of law, you have to enforce it, otherwise it's not worth the paper it's printed on.))

Quote:
Why don't we force them to be honest? Go over there, force them to comply with strict regulations, check every paper, etc. Maybe the same reason you ask someone nicely to do something. Maybe the same reason we would deny them the ability to do the same to us. And maybe, just maybe, we have actually already done all the 'forcing' we need to. If the university recognizes plagiarism as a problem and starts to work on fixing it, haven't we accomplished what we wanted to?
Well, the reason I brought up the 'force' thing is the possiblity of guilt and responsiblity. By doing nothing to stop plagrisim, by allowing the plagarism to happen, are you responsible for the plagrisim? I'd assume "No", if you believe in Free Will, but since I do have doubts about its existance, I do wonder if you believe the same thing.

But we haven't done all the force we needed to in order to stop Plagarism once and for all back in our own society, so I am not so certain that the 'force' we currently apply to other societies who may actively tolerate it would be effective.

Quote:
I don't think that is necessarily so. There are other rules at work here as well; for example, we value our internal affairs as being ours, and no one elses, and we are willing to accept that others have the same rights. Perhaps a good solution is: tell them to either do it our way, with no plagiarism, or we just don't let them publish their papers in the leading journals.
Yeah, that was what I thinking. Some moral rules will end up trumpting others.

All I desired to do with that example, however, is try to lay a groundwork for why wars between different moral systems sometimes have to happen. For much more serious affairs than just mere 'plagarism'. Since if a person does nothing to help stop the violation fo the moral code, it could be exactly the same as that person actively assisting in violating the moral code, and therefore, a person who is moral has to act against an immoral person. Though, maybe I failed in that respect? Do you have any way of explaining why wars between moral systems exist?


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-17-2008, 03:11 PM   #57
Jvstice
Junior Member
 
Jvstice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
Yeah, that was what I thinking. Some moral rules will end up trumpting others.

All I desired to do with that example, however, is try to lay a groundwork for why wars between different moral systems sometimes have to happen. For much more serious affairs than just mere 'plagarism'. Since if a person does nothing to help stop the violation fo the moral code, it could be exactly the same as that person actively assisting in violating the moral code, and therefore, a person who is moral has to act against an immoral person. Though, maybe I failed in that respect? Do you have any way of explaining why wars between moral systems exist?
Actually, I don't believe there's ever been a war that's truly been fought because of conflicting moralities. I'd argue that probably most of them are justified publically by moral or religious conflict to get the every day people on the side of the leaders, but actually occur because of different economic interests and mutually exclusive claims of soveriegnty.

Example: Slavery is usually wrongly given as the reason for the U.S. civil war. I have no doubt that it was A reason. And it's existence was a monsterous thing that shouldn't ever be justified, because there is no justification. But that was not why primarily why the civil war was fought.

Grant and other northern generals are on record as saying that they went to war on the side of the North because the United States could not survive having a foriegn power in control of the Mississippi river. Also, Lincoln who is so widely praised for his Emancipation Proclamation, did not actually free slaves from states that didn't actually seceed from the union (like Maryland and Kentucky), only from the 12- 13 states that actually left the union who already considered him to have no authority over them.

As far as the political stability in the southern states, they weren't. Less than 1 in 10 southerners owned slaves, and slaves outnumbered free people even more than that. When they got over their fear, they would have revolted and rebelled against their oppressors. And there would have been no way the southern state governments or plantation owners could have stood up against that many angry people sucessfully.

The whole serbia /Kosovo situation is a whole fight over who owns land. Irish independence from Britain? Again the question of whether england or ireland owns ireland, even though its' all dressed up as a protestant / catholic war. US occupation of Iraq? Again its' about oil on the U.S. side (it's sold about being about safe trade and commerce for us, and freedom from tyrany and fear to Iraquis), and about being occupied by a foriegn power to the Iraquis, and having local soveriegnty over their own country.


"If force is the game, the murderer wins over the pickpocket." Ayn Rand

"Justice is the midpoint between being treated unjustly, and treating others unjustly." Aristotle

Last edited by Jvstice; 03-17-2008 at 03:29 PM.
Jvstice is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-17-2008, 05:58 PM   #58
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,765
Current Game: KotOR II
I'd like to point out that while his ethical system functions (just) without, Kant's Groundwork does presuppose a deity.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-18-2008, 01:54 PM   #59
Jvstice
Junior Member
 
Jvstice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 382
Actually, if you want to get technical Kant's system assumed a deity was controlled by morality just like everyone else, not the arbiter or morality.


"If force is the game, the murderer wins over the pickpocket." Ayn Rand

"Justice is the midpoint between being treated unjustly, and treating others unjustly." Aristotle
Jvstice is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Morality

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:28 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.