Conquer Club

The rules of civil conduct are USUALLY made by the losers. They don't want to lose again.

luns101 wrote:

heavycola wrote:the UN is an interesting thing to consider. I mean thinking about it, even the holocaust was perpetuated (presumably) by people who thought they were acting for some greater good. So in that case the values being espoused at that level - the declaration of human rights, i guess - are based on overwhelming consensus and not universally held opinions.
There is a kind of convention/stereotype in the UK of the churchgoer who doesn't really believe in the miraculous stuff but agrees with the moral messages within christianity. I mean we have had plenty of arguments on here about how bloodthirsty/compassionate/whatever the bible is, but i wouldn't argue that modern christianity is, as far as my liberal-with-a-small-L xian acquaintances go, a morally bad way to live one's life.

Well, even taking Christianity or atheism out of the equation - doesn't the unending striving for world peace speak to the attempt that there is some ultimate universal good that mankind is trying to achieve? It seems to me that, regardless of nationality, there are basic rules of civil conduct by mankind.

I agree with you, but i think these are based on an overwhelming consensus rather than a platonic kind of morality. It seems that as history moves forward we are finding out collectively what we think is important. Take abortion - no, please! boom boom tish - is there really, somewhere, a code that says this is right or wrong? I don't think so - insetad we feel our way towards case-by-case understanding of the ethical questions involved, which stem in turn from human emotions.
Maybe that's what morality is - the sum total of human emotion about one issue or another. MLK had to change a lot of minds, as did ghandi.

Ok how's this:

Someone kills someone else in cold blood, no remorse, no regret. He is caught, and sentenced by a jury of his peers (equals) to death by execution. The executioner then proceeds, by injecting, electrocuting, or whatever means that society has.

For the sake of this argument, we followed a universal good, of "Thou shall not kill". The killer, the jury, and the executioner would have to be exterminated as well. (It can also be argued that everyone who played a part in his sentence be as well, lawyer, judge, governor for not calling...blah blah blah)

The reason for this, if we followed a universal good and bad case, is the jury (unless they were bullied into a guilty vote, even then it can be argued they are wrong too) said this man should die, with no remorse or regret. The executioner then killed this man, knowing he was doing something right, with no regret or remorse.

Who are we as a society to say, you can not kill, unless its for a good cause?

Now by all means, I'm not saying this man was ok to kill someone, I'm not arguing the corporal punishment system, I'm arguing that as a society now, we are nowhere NEAR having universal right and wrong.

Would everyone at least agree that Universal Soldier 2 was universally horrible?

Lord_Paul wrote:There are so many ways to argue it, but the answer to the question would be no. In some situations, (see post above) the "right thing" is "wrong" in some way. Even following some of the laws are "wrong", from s moral standpoint.

How can you say that following a law is "wrong" if you have no universal morality to base it on?

heavycola wrote:Maybe that's what morality is - the sum total of human emotion about one issue or another. MLK had to change a lot of minds, as did ghandi.

So as long as you convince enough people, anything goes? What about Hitler? He had consensus and it took a war (which most people broadly agree is bad) to change that public perception. If he had won the war, would that have made the holocaust OK?

So as long as you convince enough people, anything goes? What about Hitler? He had consensus and it took a war (which most people broadly agree is bad) to change that public perception. If he had won the war, would that have made the holocaust OK?[/quote]


If he won, him and everyone who followed him would think so, yes.
Nate it seems your not asking, "if someone does something would it be ok?"
Your asking each of us, "if someone does something would it be ok 'to us'?"

Your taking a blanket question about an abstract, and asking everyone to apply it to a single event(s).

Pico wrote:Now by all means, I'm not saying this man was ok to kill someone, I'm not arguing the corporal punishment system, I'm arguing that as a society now, we are nowhere NEAR having universal right and wrong.

Simply because our society fails to recognize it does not mean that the standards do not exist.

Pico wrote:If he won, him and everyone who followed him would think so, yes.
Nate it seems your not asking, "if someone does something would it be ok?"
Your asking each of us, "if someone does something would it be ok 'to us'?"
Your taking a blanket question about an abstract, and asking everyone to apply it to a single event(s).

I'm trying to get the personal morality that I believe is embedded inside of each of us to revolt against particular evils that can be culturally justified. That could begin demonstrate a morality outside of culture.

Unfortunately this will go round and round. If you take Hitler and his war (leave the holocaust out for a min) and compare it to any other leader who has started a war, could you choose which is evil and which is good, without a vale in front of your eyes telling you which is which?

-These two leaders, fought against a corrupt regime, trying to prevent the abuse and poverty of their people.

-This leader, believed that his people were unjustly blamed for a prior conflict, and unfairly treated by the rest of the world.

-This leader agreed that the people needed to defend their land from outsiders, cultivating into stressed racial clashes to this day.

-This leader believed a unresolved conflict would lead to later ramifications.

Is the suggestion going here that the concept of right and wrong are social constructs which we learn from a very young age? Well my mother works with a day care business and ive seen many kids grow up from the age of a little younger then one years old to five years old, presumably its this period in which they are taught what right and wrong are? From experience i would say this is not the case, simply because the point at which a child has no idea about right and wrong to a point where a child knows when they are doing the wrong thing comes way to soon after they get a basic understanding of communication. I think from experience that before society has a chance to teach them anything including their parents, these kids have an understanding of boundaries and when they are going over them, and they have an inherent understanding that going over these boundaries is for lack of a better word, wrong. I thought it might be interesting to discuss the issue from that perspective. What is everyone's thoughts on this?

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

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.

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.

Hitler believed he was doing the right thing.

So did Stalin, and he brought Mother-Russia into the Industrial Age. <though he was insane>

Mao Tse Tung? Massacre of millions. But they believe Communism is the right way.


You want proof of no Good or Evil? Look at the MILLIONS of different religions.

MR. Nate wrote:

heavycola wrote:Maybe that's what morality is - the sum total of human emotion about one issue or another. MLK had to change a lot of minds, as did ghandi.

So as long as you convince enough people, anything goes? What about Hitler? He had consensus and it took a war (which most people broadly agree is bad) to change that public perception. If he had won the war, would that have made the holocaust OK?

We have hindsight. Like I said, i believe we are feelign our way towards a greater morality all the time. There is no death sentence in the UK, for example. We also don't burn witches anymore, call immigrants awful names or keep slaves. For much of the past these things were all acceptable, and none of us can say for sure that had we been living in those times we would have been able to apply 21st century values to those things.

heavycola wrote:We have hindsight. Like I said, i believe we are feelign our way towards a greater morality all the time. There is no death sentence in the UK, for example. We also don't burn witches anymore, call immigrants awful names or keep slaves. For much of the past these things were all acceptable, and none of us can say for sure that had we been living in those times we would have been able to apply 21st century values to those things.

And there's less genocide today than there was 200 years ago . . . oh, no, wait. And fewer wars . . . whoops, nope. Lower crime in the cities points directly at increasing morality . . . no, that doesn't quite work either.

I'm assuming when you say "We" you're referring to the west, not the entire world, because all of that stuff you mentioned goes on in most of the world. So the morality of the entire world isn't necessarily progressing, just western cultures.

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...

again your taking this initial question about Good and Evil and are applying it to multiple events (one at a time) to get us to see some ideology of yours, that you've never really outlined.

To me, it seems like you watched "V for Vendetta" (or read the graphic novel) too many times, and want to start it up yourself.

The questions was: Is there a universal good and evil?

Not...."How do you feel about every single major event in recorded human history." I'm not saying you can't give examples, just don't start the argument of "what about 'A'?" answer "well then what about 'B', 'C' and 'D'?" answer "So you think this way about A,B,C,and D? That doesn't make sense" "what bout F and G?"

See this just keeps going round and round.

thats it for today was aiming to hit 1500...


I will leave the rest of u the spamming

MR. Nate wrote:Updated list of those that feel that torturing innocent children and skeet shooting newborns is not only justifiable, but they can be fun pastimes as well.


Riao
Pico
vtmarik
Rocky Horror
heavycola
n8freeman*

*denotes those who want a 51% of the population to agree prior to actually pulling the trigger.

I like how you assume that my belief that human morals/ethics don't extend to the entirety of the cosmos means that I like the idea of dead babies. Now, while dead baby jokes are funny, I don't personally enjoy the concept of skeet shooting them.

Need I remind you the difference between ubiquitous and universal?

I only said it was justifiable by someone who truly believed that there was no Universal Good and Evil, I did not say I enjoyed doing it.

MR. Nate wrote:By the allowing culture to dictate morality, you should agree that:

1. Ghandi was wrong for rebelling against his culture to help the poor achieve equal rights.

2. Hitler was correct in ordering the Holocaust because the majority of culture agreed with him.

3. Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong for fighting against racism because it was a cultural norm.

4. William Wilberforce was wrong for battling slavery because it was a cultural norm.

Is that correct?

Yes. That is correct if you take a hard-line approach to cultural relativism.

However, we come to a crossroads in this argument if we start to believe in cultural relativism. If every culture has its morality then, effectively, there is no morality. Martin Luther King was not wrong for fighting racism because there IS no wrong... there was no right or wrong in Ghandi's struggle, nor Wilberforce's. There is no point in defining it if we don't believe in it. Who said that we had be comforted by our philosophical views? I'm certainly not...

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.

vtmarik wrote:I like how you assume that my belief that human morals/ethics don't extend to the entirety of the cosmos means that I like the idea of dead babies. Now, while dead baby jokes are funny, I don't personally enjoy the concept of skeet shooting them.

Need I remind you the difference between ubiquitous and universal?

If they don't apply to the entirety of the cosmos, where do they end? If they have an ending point then they are by default, relative. I think it's been made clear that if they are relative, then under the right circumstances, anything could be moral. If anything can be right given the appropriate circumstances than nothing is wrong, and you could, conceivably, come to a point where things you currently consider horrific are acceptable under your moral code.

Rocky Horror wrote:I only said it was justifiable by someone who truly believed that there was no Universal Good and Evil, I did not say I enjoyed doing it.

If it's justifiable, why not enjoy it? You certainly shouldn't feel guilty.

Guiscard wrote:Yes. That is correct if you take a hard-line approach to cultural relativism.

However, we come to a crossroads in this argument if we start to believe in cultural relativism. If every culture has its morality then, effectively, there is no morality. Martin Luther King was not wrong for fighting racism because there IS no wrong... there was no right or wrong in Ghandi's struggle, nor Wilberforce's. There is no point in defining it if we don't believe in it. Who said that we had be comforted by our philosophical views? I'm certainly not...

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.

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.

Rocky Horror wrote:
I only said it was justifiable by someone who truly believed that there was no Universal Good and Evil, I did not say I enjoyed doing it.

If it's justifiable, why not enjoy it? You certainly shouldn't feel guilty.



Just because something's justifiable doesn't mean you should enjoy it.
The guy who pulls the switch on the electric chair - his action is justifiable but do you think he enjoys it? Would you enjoy hearing the death cries of someone being slowly killed?

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

Why not? Is it wrong to enjoy it?

MR. Nate wrote:If they don't apply to the entirety of the cosmos, where do they end? If they have an ending point then they are by default, relative. I think it's been made clear that if they are relative, then under the right circumstances, anything could be moral. If anything can be right given the appropriate circumstances than nothing is wrong, and you could, conceivably, come to a point where things you currently consider horrific are acceptable under your moral code.

I'm guessing that they end where human occupancy ends.

They're relative to the human race. Trees don't have morals, nor do most animals. They're ubiquitous throughout the planet, but not necessarily throughout the universe. Hypothetically, there may be another race of intelligent beings out there in the infinite void that see killing deformed babies as not only OK but a fun activity for families.