*grabbing the popcorn and the better seat to watch the fur fly!*Goober Mcfly said:
oh god stop me now!
WTF?!?!?! American soldiers EXEMPT from criminal court ...
- Thread starter submissivedave
- Start date
oh god stop me now!
Sure, it can happen ...
Aliens are clones.papasmerf said:.............How does a child growup in texas and several thousand miles south at once????
Re: Sure, it can happen ...
na Sanity is measured by the best of 1000
hmmmmmmmmmm I wonder
LOLBerlin said:Aliens are clones.
na Sanity is measured by the best of 1000
hmmmmmmmmmm I wonder
Hold my seat I got to run to the bathroom.
Goob what did you say Alien wifes' phone number was??????
Goob what did you say Alien wifes' phone number was??????
Bottom line
Men are Men, governments are governments, no matter the country ...
Humans are not perfect and power is the drug many are addicted to ... People who crave power are attracted to goverment jobs like TERBits to SP's. And power corupts them ...
Military men from Iraq rape ... Military men from the US rape ... military men from Canada rape ... we are all basicly the same ... if we as men, or group of men, or race, or country think we have power over someone else, eventually we will try to excersize it ... its human nature
Power corupts ...
Luckily 95% of men are not corupted ... they are good, normal folks like you and I ... do you think that I "as an American solider" would want to go off to a forgein country and kill some "Iraqi" solider who last week was just at home minding his own business?
Nope ... its politicals ... organized groups of "were better than you" clones, be it countries, religions or whatever ... capitalists or socialists, Rebublicans or Democrats, Jews, Muslems, Catholics ... the UN, the world court, the US or Canadian Governments ... all are evil groups designed to give someone power ... and excersise that Power they do ...
We as the common folks always pay for someone elses power trip ...
It just SUCks ... Damn ... now I need to go find someone to give me a good BJ to relieve all this stress ... LOL
Men are Men, governments are governments, no matter the country ...
Humans are not perfect and power is the drug many are addicted to ... People who crave power are attracted to goverment jobs like TERBits to SP's. And power corupts them ...
Military men from Iraq rape ... Military men from the US rape ... military men from Canada rape ... we are all basicly the same ... if we as men, or group of men, or race, or country think we have power over someone else, eventually we will try to excersize it ... its human nature
Power corupts ...
Luckily 95% of men are not corupted ... they are good, normal folks like you and I ... do you think that I "as an American solider" would want to go off to a forgein country and kill some "Iraqi" solider who last week was just at home minding his own business?
Nope ... its politicals ... organized groups of "were better than you" clones, be it countries, religions or whatever ... capitalists or socialists, Rebublicans or Democrats, Jews, Muslems, Catholics ... the UN, the world court, the US or Canadian Governments ... all are evil groups designed to give someone power ... and excersise that Power they do ...
We as the common folks always pay for someone elses power trip ...
It just SUCks ... Damn ... now I need to go find someone to give me a good BJ to relieve all this stress ... LOL
The False Alternative: The Sado-Masochistic View of Ethics
As for " individuals to surrender their personal responsibility to some outside code." False.
Moral principles are reached -- individually -- by a process of induction and used as guides for rational, and therefore, moral conduct. As adults we know stealing is wrong because we are taking someone else's property. This is the principle no matter what the value of the item. The point of the moral principle is that I must be left free from the initiation of force from others in order to co-exist with the rest of humanity. I owe this general respect to others as well: You have a right to exist for your own sake.
"But morality is not about oneself, it is how you deal with others." This is an anti-self view of morality that pits the individual against him or herself. If the only way I can be moral is by servicing the needs of others -- and they accept my sacrifices -- doesn't that make them selfish for accepting my sacrifices? When does their needs stop being a mortgage on my life?
"Without any thought of reciprocity". "Reciprocity" would certainly come from doing good things for friends and family ( if they value you). So if I follow the logic of Rawhide's reasoning I should place a higher moral value on a stranger (where the chances of reciprocity are much less) than valuing my friends and family. Why? Because "reciprocity" comes in different forms. I may not get paid back IN KIND from my friends and family, but their general betterment is of concern to you. The accusation of "what it can do for you" is less likely when you don't know the person. That doesn't mean I DON'T do things for strangers. I may spare a quarter, hold the door open, give to the Good Will, help someone with carrying something, etc, etc, for strangers but this when it's of no sacrifice to me (I do so to set an example rational benevolent conduct in society, the way I like to be treated). But if I give money that should go to my child (if I had one) and instead give it to a random stanger than I can't be accused of reciprocity. Or, if I give in some other way until it hurts. E.g. I can barely survive myself, yet, keep giving. Than this is very moral indeed by Rawhide's standards.
I submit that Rawhide's view of morality would be impossible to follow without violating it. This anti-self morality, in practice, would also lead to a collectivist State forcing you to do your duty to others.
It's also denys reality: We are rational beings by nature. Nature does NOT automatically keep us alive. We must act in order to live. We must think if our actions are to have any efficacy at keeping us alive. Morality, therefore, stems from this self preservation.
This anti-self morality is counter-evolutionary. Read Matt Ridley's (The Evolution of Virtue).
How does one come to moral responsibility if one can't rely on past thinking? So a mentally retarded person can be held morally accountable for their actions? How about a two year old child?rawhide said:Thus, the moral blindness to which you refer comes from surrendering one's moral responsibility to a set of principles composed by others. It lets one off the hook. If we all asserted our moral responsibility, perhaps we would be better off....but too many seem to have surrendered it......
As for " individuals to surrender their personal responsibility to some outside code." False.
Moral principles are reached -- individually -- by a process of induction and used as guides for rational, and therefore, moral conduct. As adults we know stealing is wrong because we are taking someone else's property. This is the principle no matter what the value of the item. The point of the moral principle is that I must be left free from the initiation of force from others in order to co-exist with the rest of humanity. I owe this general respect to others as well: You have a right to exist for your own sake.
"But morality is not about oneself, it is how you deal with others." This is an anti-self view of morality that pits the individual against him or herself. If the only way I can be moral is by servicing the needs of others -- and they accept my sacrifices -- doesn't that make them selfish for accepting my sacrifices? When does their needs stop being a mortgage on my life?
"Without any thought of reciprocity". "Reciprocity" would certainly come from doing good things for friends and family ( if they value you). So if I follow the logic of Rawhide's reasoning I should place a higher moral value on a stranger (where the chances of reciprocity are much less) than valuing my friends and family. Why? Because "reciprocity" comes in different forms. I may not get paid back IN KIND from my friends and family, but their general betterment is of concern to you. The accusation of "what it can do for you" is less likely when you don't know the person. That doesn't mean I DON'T do things for strangers. I may spare a quarter, hold the door open, give to the Good Will, help someone with carrying something, etc, etc, for strangers but this when it's of no sacrifice to me (I do so to set an example rational benevolent conduct in society, the way I like to be treated). But if I give money that should go to my child (if I had one) and instead give it to a random stanger than I can't be accused of reciprocity. Or, if I give in some other way until it hurts. E.g. I can barely survive myself, yet, keep giving. Than this is very moral indeed by Rawhide's standards.
I submit that Rawhide's view of morality would be impossible to follow without violating it. This anti-self morality, in practice, would also lead to a collectivist State forcing you to do your duty to others.
It's also denys reality: We are rational beings by nature. Nature does NOT automatically keep us alive. We must act in order to live. We must think if our actions are to have any efficacy at keeping us alive. Morality, therefore, stems from this self preservation.
This anti-self morality is counter-evolutionary. Read Matt Ridley's (The Evolution of Virtue).
What is moral may not be rational.
What is rational may not be moral.
Rationality comes from the intellect, yet, there are things which can not be grasped by the intellect. For a good example, read a few of things written by William Barret. Or if your into mysticism, you can even go and try Wililam James ... or if you wanna get really hardcore, try Heidegger ...
As for morality for oneself ... well, yeah, I agree ... but who can reach that level? Remember the story I wrote about in another thread. If you have not read it, I will remind you here.
I was in iaido class and my instructor once said to me, "when you have reached fourth dan, you will draw your sword how you think it should be drawn. Not the way you were taught or the way other do it. And this is when you are not learning martial arts, but when martial arts learns you ..." Coincidentally, in another martial arts class, another instructor said, "when you reach fourth dan, you will throw a punch how you think a punch should be thrown and not the way you learned or the way someone else of higher rank does it ..."
By why fourth dan? Because you can reach third dan and still be mechnical. But yet, martial arts is call martial "arts" simply because it is a art form. But someone of lower ranking will not the "art" out of it because they are merely following and mimicing others, namely, the instructor ... so it is very mechnical, very scientific if you will. But if "copying" and just mimicing and learning the forms is the pinnicale of martial arts, why call it martial arts instead of martial "science" ... the answer is self evident ...
My main point being is, not many people can reach fourth dan, just like not many people can be "individualistic" without being egoistic and selfish. Just like not many people can reach self-actualization. Additionally, morality is indeed a social/collective issue. For instance, cannibalism and polygamy is accepted in some cultures while shunned in others. Morality is relative to the culture and culture is a social/collective thing ...
A Westerner is very likely to be raised with Christian morality whereas a Hindu is raised with Hindu morality just like an East Asian is raised with Confucian morality ... you can not escape that. Meaning we will always be a "camel" as noted in the Three Metamorphoses as stated by Zarathustra. I mean, personally, one of the reasons why "witty" has become a "virtue" in the West is because of Machiavelli, who turned Christianity upside down ...
Nonetheless, in the extreme, I do agree that indivdual consciousness is the highest human achivement, yet, not everyone, in fact, very few can reach this stage ... and I am definitely not one of them ...
As for being on topic, well ... all I can say is this:
The Nazis and the Japanese thought what they did was rational. And up until the US jumped in, it seemed that the Axis were succeeding in their gloabl conquest. Therefore, does that mean killing Jews was also rational? Arendt says no because she said Hitler was too obsessed about killing Jews instead of staying on track. I personally think the most rational thing to do with conquered peoples is to get them to work for you ... why kill them when you can use their specializations and knowledge into new things? Not to mention the added manpower ... and that's one of the reasons why the Mongols were so successful ...
So, because they (Axis) lost the war, does it automatically make their gobal campaigns irrational and hence immoral? Well, then, the Mongols "terrorized" many and were highly successful in their conquest but were immoral in the eyes of the terrorized. So does rationality and morality go hand in hand?
As stated earlier in this post, what is rational may not be moral and what is moral may not be rational ...
What is rational may not be moral.
Rationality comes from the intellect, yet, there are things which can not be grasped by the intellect. For a good example, read a few of things written by William Barret. Or if your into mysticism, you can even go and try Wililam James ... or if you wanna get really hardcore, try Heidegger ...
As for morality for oneself ... well, yeah, I agree ... but who can reach that level? Remember the story I wrote about in another thread. If you have not read it, I will remind you here.
I was in iaido class and my instructor once said to me, "when you have reached fourth dan, you will draw your sword how you think it should be drawn. Not the way you were taught or the way other do it. And this is when you are not learning martial arts, but when martial arts learns you ..." Coincidentally, in another martial arts class, another instructor said, "when you reach fourth dan, you will throw a punch how you think a punch should be thrown and not the way you learned or the way someone else of higher rank does it ..."
By why fourth dan? Because you can reach third dan and still be mechnical. But yet, martial arts is call martial "arts" simply because it is a art form. But someone of lower ranking will not the "art" out of it because they are merely following and mimicing others, namely, the instructor ... so it is very mechnical, very scientific if you will. But if "copying" and just mimicing and learning the forms is the pinnicale of martial arts, why call it martial arts instead of martial "science" ... the answer is self evident ...
My main point being is, not many people can reach fourth dan, just like not many people can be "individualistic" without being egoistic and selfish. Just like not many people can reach self-actualization. Additionally, morality is indeed a social/collective issue. For instance, cannibalism and polygamy is accepted in some cultures while shunned in others. Morality is relative to the culture and culture is a social/collective thing ...
A Westerner is very likely to be raised with Christian morality whereas a Hindu is raised with Hindu morality just like an East Asian is raised with Confucian morality ... you can not escape that. Meaning we will always be a "camel" as noted in the Three Metamorphoses as stated by Zarathustra. I mean, personally, one of the reasons why "witty" has become a "virtue" in the West is because of Machiavelli, who turned Christianity upside down ...
Nonetheless, in the extreme, I do agree that indivdual consciousness is the highest human achivement, yet, not everyone, in fact, very few can reach this stage ... and I am definitely not one of them ...
As for being on topic, well ... all I can say is this:
The Nazis and the Japanese thought what they did was rational. And up until the US jumped in, it seemed that the Axis were succeeding in their gloabl conquest. Therefore, does that mean killing Jews was also rational? Arendt says no because she said Hitler was too obsessed about killing Jews instead of staying on track. I personally think the most rational thing to do with conquered peoples is to get them to work for you ... why kill them when you can use their specializations and knowledge into new things? Not to mention the added manpower ... and that's one of the reasons why the Mongols were so successful ...
So, because they (Axis) lost the war, does it automatically make their gobal campaigns irrational and hence immoral? Well, then, the Mongols "terrorized" many and were highly successful in their conquest but were immoral in the eyes of the terrorized. So does rationality and morality go hand in hand?
As stated earlier in this post, what is rational may not be moral and what is moral may not be rational ...
WforS:
The supremacy of reason, the rational, lies at the heart of "modernist" theory and in that theory, emotions, customs, conventions and all non-rational things were suppressed. Its intent was to overthrow the power of the church and superstition in the lives of people. In its place was put the state. Rational things can be controlled and the state was eager to regulate rational activities. Non-rational activities could not be controlled easily and so they were made anti-social as a way of discouraging people from acting that way and of punishing those who did.
Developing "moral principles", as you advocate is very modernistic because it is based on reason and concious thought.
"Post-modernists" believe that the modernists went too far and created illusions of reality in doing so. One aspect has to do with morality. The post-moderists seem to be saying that morality was displaced by the 'modernization' process because morality was something that could not be measured or quantified or dealt with on a rational basis. Instead, there was an effort to develop universal 'moral' principles. These 'moral' principals told people how to act instead of leaving them to act on their own instinct. But the principals always breakdown because they apply in some situations but not in others. What you are describing is acting ethically, i.e. in conformity with stated principles. This should not be confused with moral action which is action taken on the basis of human impulse without forethought.
I can see why you would say morality as I have expressed it is anti-self (and therefore not rational I suppose). I would suggest that it is selfless, not anti-self. It is the human urge within us. A mother who leaps in front of a speeding car to push a child out of harms way without thinking about the consequences for her is commiting a moral act.
I said we might be better off if we acted morally because I think most people are decent human beings with positive human impulses. Instead, many of us wait to see what others say and then retreat into the safety of a consensus. Your moral impulse in a military situation might be to recognize that people are getting killed and that this should not happen, whereas your rational response might be to accept what you are being told, for example, that the military action is to protect democracy.
In other words, I am suggesting that we should rely on our moral impuses more than we have, even if those impulses seem irrational at times.
The supremacy of reason, the rational, lies at the heart of "modernist" theory and in that theory, emotions, customs, conventions and all non-rational things were suppressed. Its intent was to overthrow the power of the church and superstition in the lives of people. In its place was put the state. Rational things can be controlled and the state was eager to regulate rational activities. Non-rational activities could not be controlled easily and so they were made anti-social as a way of discouraging people from acting that way and of punishing those who did.
Developing "moral principles", as you advocate is very modernistic because it is based on reason and concious thought.
"Post-modernists" believe that the modernists went too far and created illusions of reality in doing so. One aspect has to do with morality. The post-moderists seem to be saying that morality was displaced by the 'modernization' process because morality was something that could not be measured or quantified or dealt with on a rational basis. Instead, there was an effort to develop universal 'moral' principles. These 'moral' principals told people how to act instead of leaving them to act on their own instinct. But the principals always breakdown because they apply in some situations but not in others. What you are describing is acting ethically, i.e. in conformity with stated principles. This should not be confused with moral action which is action taken on the basis of human impulse without forethought.
I can see why you would say morality as I have expressed it is anti-self (and therefore not rational I suppose). I would suggest that it is selfless, not anti-self. It is the human urge within us. A mother who leaps in front of a speeding car to push a child out of harms way without thinking about the consequences for her is commiting a moral act.
I said we might be better off if we acted morally because I think most people are decent human beings with positive human impulses. Instead, many of us wait to see what others say and then retreat into the safety of a consensus. Your moral impulse in a military situation might be to recognize that people are getting killed and that this should not happen, whereas your rational response might be to accept what you are being told, for example, that the military action is to protect democracy.
In other words, I am suggesting that we should rely on our moral impuses more than we have, even if those impulses seem irrational at times.
