Conquer Club

MR. Nate wrote:

Rocky Horror wrote:Just because something's justifiable doesn't mean you should enjoy it.

Why not? Is it wrong to enjoy it?

It depends whether you enjoy killing or not. It's not WRONG except if you have a sense of morality <by that I mean you have based it on religion etc>

MR. Nate wrote:If this is correct, than absolutely nothing allows you to criticize those who choose not to follow it. So, the moral choices of Seung-Hui Cho are in every way as valid as yours. To criticize him in any way is to be hypocritical because he was acting in the way that he believed to be the best, happiest and most successful by his frame of reference. To even suggest that he needed counseling would be hypocritical, because his moral choices were simply different.

Yep. You're 100% right. I don't like it, but that's what I see as reality. That's why I stated before we don't have to like it...

This is the key point:

Guiscard wrote:We are what we are. Morality is a concept inside our brains which helps us psychologically deal with situations and decisions. Nothing more. I still obey it, of course, because I believe that is the best, happiest and most successful way to live my life, but I don't believe it exists as a universal constant.

It might be a horrific concept, but it is life. No more horrific than the genocides or massacres, or the rape of children... But then again, are they wrong?

So you have no moral objections to being phished?

I guess I want to ask a question or two to everyone.

Would you care if someone stole from you?
Would you care if someone murdered your family members?
Would you care if someone told lies about you and it cost you your job?

Why?

If you say yes to any of these then you have some sort of ethical standard for yourself. For that standard to mean anything, others must agree to it. But if theses standards are only opinions of men, no one is right or wrong.

Therefore you have no reason to answer yes to these questions because you cannot justify it above my justification for committing these acts.

That is why there needs to be a moral/ethical absolute. Otherwise anything goes and you can't justifiably complain.

Why do people not want to admit there are universal ethics? If they admit that there are rules or codes above themselves, they cannot justify the things they do that fit there own lifestyle. Selfishness. People are selfish and they want to figure a out way to justify the things THEY want to do.

By saying there are not absolutes they can convince themselves that it is OK to do something as long as they feel it is OK. That is bad logic.

luns101 wrote:

Riao wrote:

luns101 wrote:I just took this moral sense test conducted by Harvard. You can take as many sets as they offer, or just take one set. It's up to you and it was interesting. Anyway, it relates to this thread...hope others find it universally good.

http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/index.html

The test had some interesting questions, but I didn't like the way they were presented... "what should bruce do?" I found myself answering in the middle mostly because I always felt that Bruce should do what he's comfortable with. Who am I to say what bruce should do? I only answered one way or the other if I felt that the answer could affect other people in a negative way.

Non-committer! Somewhere there's a guy named Bruce who is screwed up because he didn't get an answer either way.

Oh jeez! I never even thought that this whole experiment might be orchestrated by Bruce himself!!

Oh Bruce I'm sorry! Let me take it again, I'll be your mentor!

Riao wrote:

luns101 wrote:

Riao wrote:

luns101 wrote:I just took this moral sense test conducted by Harvard. You can take as many sets as they offer, or just take one set. It's up to you and it was interesting. Anyway, it relates to this thread...hope others find it universally good.

http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/index.html

The test had some interesting questions, but I didn't like the way they were presented... "what should bruce do?" I found myself answering in the middle mostly because I always felt that Bruce should do what he's comfortable with. Who am I to say what bruce should do? I only answered one way or the other if I felt that the answer could affect other people in a negative way.

Non-committer! Somewhere there's a guy named Bruce who is screwed up because he didn't get an answer either way.

Oh jeez! I never even thought that this whole experiment might be orchestrated by Bruce himself!!

Oh Bruce I'm sorry! Let me take it again, I'll be your mentor!

someone fucked up.

Don't worry Riao it wasn't you.











actually it was. douchebag.

I don't really think you're a douchebag

flashleg8 wrote:

luns101 wrote:I just took this moral sense test conducted by Harvard. You can take as many sets as they offer, or just take one set. It's up to you and it was interesting. Anyway, it relates to this thread...hope others find it universally good.

http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/index.html

I took a couple of sets, when do they publish the results?

I've got The Fear a bit in case they've targeted my IP address and they've notified the authorities...

This was on their FAQ page:

The MST is still at the data collection phase, but we hope to be analyzing and publishing our results soon. As our results are published they will be posted on the website, so be sure to check back soon. Since knowledge of our hypothesis and preliminary results could bias test-takers' answers we cannot release data from each phase of our research until that phase is completed and the data prepared for publication. However, we will be turning over all data collected from UK internet risk players with Che Guevara avatars to international authorities before year-end.

http://wjh1.wjh.harvard.edu/~moral/faqs.html#1a

Hope that helps out a bit. On the bright side, it seems that middle-aged American Christian males who love hockey and watch LOST can submit answers with the utmost confidence of privacy.

Eat the cake or eat the pudding? Well, which do YOU think tastes better? Their questions really WERE weird at times.

luns101 wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:

luns101 wrote:I just took this moral sense test conducted by Harvard. You can take as many sets as they offer, or just take one set. It's up to you and it was interesting. Anyway, it relates to this thread...hope others find it universally good.

http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/index.html

I took a couple of sets, when do they publish the results?

I've got The Fear a bit in case they've targeted my IP address and they've notified the authorities...

This was on their FAQ page:

The MST is still at the data collection phase, but we hope to be analyzing and publishing our results soon. As our results are published they will be posted on the website, so be sure to check back soon. Since knowledge of our hypothesis and preliminary results could bias test-takers' answers we cannot release data from each phase of our research until that phase is completed and the data prepared for publication. However, we will be turning over all data collected from UK internet risk players with Che Guevara avatars to international authorities before year-end.

http://wjh1.wjh.harvard.edu/~moral/faqs.html#1a

Hope that helps out a bit. On the bright side, it seems that middle-aged American Christian males who love hockey and watch LOST can submit answers with the utmost confidence of privacy.

Thanks [always read the FAQ's duh!] Look forward to their results, I think I'll take some more sets later - makes interesting thought for some. I would really be interested how much from the average I am (and you were!). Some seemed the only option to be (but perhaps not everyone?) while others I could see would be controversial, and I knew I would be against the norm.

WidowMakers wrote:I guess I want to ask a question or two to everyone.

Would you care if someone stole from you?
Would you care if someone murdered your family members?
Would you care if someone told lies about you and it cost you your job?

Why?

If you say yes to any of these then you have some sort of ethical standard for yourself. For that standard to mean anything, others must agree to it. But if theses standards are only opinions of men, no one is right or wrong.

Therefore you have no reason to answer yes to these questions because you cannot justify it above my justification for committing these acts.

That is why there needs to be a moral/ethical absolute. Otherwise anything goes and you can't justifiably complain.

Why do people not want to admit there are universal ethics? If they admit that there are rules or codes above themselves, they cannot justify the things they do that fit there own lifestyle. Selfishness. People are selfish and they want to figure a out way to justify the things THEY want to do.

By saying there are not absolutes they can convince themselves that it is OK to do something as long as they feel it is OK. That is bad logic.

My morality comes from the one we are born with - a desire for self - advancement.

flashleg8 wrote:I would really be interested how much from the average I am (and you were!). Some seemed the only option to be (but perhaps not everyone?) while others I could see would be controversial, and I knew I would be against the norm.

Yeah, it really challenged me, especially the questions on cloning. [I don't know if you got any dealing with that subject or not]. As someone who does actually believe in a universal good/evil, it forces you to take a look at your own beliefs. In general, I tried to make the choice of what was the greater good or the lesser evil. Human cloning is one of those difficult subjects, I'm generally against it.

What really gets me irked are these reports of animal-human hybrids that the Chinese worked on. It's also been worked on by scientists here in California and Minnesota. It's like The Island of Dr. Moreau is out in the open now...not hiding on an island anymore.

Rocky Horror wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:I guess I want to ask a question or two to everyone.

Would you care if someone stole from you?
Would you care if someone murdered your family members?
Would you care if someone told lies about you and it cost you your job?

Why?

If you say yes to any of these then you have some sort of ethical standard for yourself. For that standard to mean anything, others must agree to it. But if theses standards are only opinions of men, no one is right or wrong.

Therefore you have no reason to answer yes to these questions because you cannot justify it above my justification for committing these acts.

That is why there needs to be a moral/ethical absolute. Otherwise anything goes and you can't justifiably complain.

Why do people not want to admit there are universal ethics? If they admit that there are rules or codes above themselves, they cannot justify the things they do that fit there own lifestyle. Selfishness. People are selfish and they want to figure a out way to justify the things THEY want to do.

By saying there are not absolutes they can convince themselves that it is OK to do something as long as they feel it is OK. That is bad logic.

My morality comes from the one we are born with - a desire for self - advancement.

You did not answer my question. Would you care and why?

MeDeFe wrote:Eat the cake or eat the pudding? Well, which do YOU think tastes better? Their questions really WERE weird at times.

I did only the first couple of quizzes. Apart from getting the impression that we seemed to be to asked to decide on other people's personal tastes, the overall impression I got was that we were being asked about loyalty and/or consistency. I'm not entirely clear what the latter has to do with moral sense.

Also, there was the one about feeding the pig bacon. Well, really, what can be wrong with that?

Damn, I understand that they have to be oblique about everything, but I really want to know what the quizzes were all about now.

EDIT: Reading back a bit in this thread, I didn't get as far as the cloning questions. I might try those tomorrow when I freshen up a bit.

luns101 wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:I would really be interested how much from the average I am (and you were!). Some seemed the only option to be (but perhaps not everyone?) while others I could see would be controversial, and I knew I would be against the norm.

Yeah, it really challenged me, especially the questions on cloning. [I don't know if you got any dealing with that subject or not]. As someone who does actually believe in a universal good/evil, it forces you to take a look at your own beliefs. In general, I tried to make the choice of what was the greater good or the lesser evil. Human cloning is one of those difficult subjects, I'm generally against it.

What really gets me irked are these reports of animal-human hybrids that the Chinese worked on. It's also been worked on by scientists here in California and Minnesota. It's like The Island of Dr. Moreau is out in the open now...not hiding on an island anymore.

Yeah, those are some real stickers aren't they? On one hand, the ability to grow new organs (new liver, anyone?) in an oversized petri-dish is cool, but I can't help but worry what new biological weapon could be created. Or what kind of monstrosity would be unleached.

The day human-animal hybrids walk the same streets I do is the day Dark Angel is hailed as a prophetic wonder.

n8freeman wrote:OF COURSE THERE IS A PURE AND UNIVERSAL EVIL

IT IS I!!!!!!

WITH MY POST COUNT OF THE DREADED 666

IM AM COMING AND I AM VENGEANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now you're sounding like a cosmic JoeBeevers.

MeDeFe wrote:Eat the cake or eat the pudding? Well, which do YOU think tastes better? Their questions really WERE weird at times.

Yeah I couldn't see that one as a moral dilemma. More of an up-chuck reflex.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Eat the cake or eat the pudding? Well, which do YOU think tastes better? Their questions really WERE weird at times.

Yeah I couldn't see that one as a moral dilemma. More of an up-chuck reflex.

Unless it was some psychobable thing. Meaning, cake identifies you are a type-whatever personallity or some such.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Unless it was some psychobable thing. Meaning, cake identifies you are a type-whatever personallity or some such.

Hmmm...the old metaphor between food and personality type. I'm intrigued.

Nah, the (chocolate) pudding was served on unused diapers for humorous purposes, giving it the appearance of something not so appetizing. But what's the big deal? Even if someone isn't put off by how it's served this person might not even like pudding.

Birmingham City FC are a universal evil, as is George W Bush.


Other than that, I can't think of anything that could always and in every case be considered 'evil'.

What did they do? Won against your favourite team?

MeDeFe wrote:What did they do? Won against your favourite team?

Nah ... they just come from the wrong, evil side of Birmingham.

Good boys and girls go to watch Aston Villa FC, the evil ones lurk around Small Heath (Birmingham City)

luns101 wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:Unless it was some psychobable thing. Meaning, cake identifies you are a type-whatever personallity or some such.

Hmmm...the old metaphor between food and personality type. I'm intrigued.

Not that I'd have the foggyest idea what the cake is a metaphor for though. I may be well read but there are some topics I know very little about.

WidowMakers wrote:I guess I want to ask a question or two to everyone.

Would you care if someone stole from you?
Would you care if someone murdered your family members?
Would you care if someone told lies about you and it cost you your job?

Why?

If you say yes to any of these then you have some sort of ethical standard for yourself. For that standard to mean anything, others must agree to it. But if theses standards are only opinions of men, no one is right or wrong.

Therefore you have no reason to answer yes to these questions because you cannot justify it above my justification for committing these acts.

That is why there needs to be a moral/ethical absolute. Otherwise anything goes and you can't justifiably complain.

Why do people not want to admit there are universal ethics? If they admit that there are rules or codes above themselves, they cannot justify the things they do that fit there own lifestyle. Selfishness. People are selfish and they want to figure a out way to justify the things THEY want to do.

By saying there are not absolutes they can convince themselves that it is OK to do something as long as they feel it is OK. That is bad logic.

The third answer, the one you seem to ignore, is that we can see these apparent 'absolutes' as a sham, but a necessary sham. Yes, society would fall apart if we didn't hold true to these concepts, but that doesn't make them tangible, real or absolute. They are just relevant to our particular situation and it is easier to pretend to ourselves they are universal. No-one is justifying any right or wrong action. That's the point. It must be frustrating to keep hearing this, as time and time again in debates I've had with people those who believe in universal absolutes almost always fail to grasp this opposing argument (as opposed to theism/atheism or whatever).