 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
where do you think those "basic rules of humanity" come from? |
The $64 Million Question. Unfortunetly no one has been able to claim the prize yet  . |
Well, buckle your seatbelt, because here it is:
Those things violate the basic rules because once a society possesses them, it will inevitable collapse of its own accord even if no outside force stops it. It might take some time, but it will eventually happen. In more modern days other countries are much more likely to go and try to intervene when one country is doing something bad.
In other words, there are basic principles that all societies must largely honor in order to survive and function as a society. There are then other principles that must exist for the society to really thrive and remain vibrant. As anyone should be able to see, some laws and systems are very good for a society, some are good, some are ok, some are bad, and some are suicide, etc. This is basically where the idea of law and morality originates.
Of course, not everyone feels like this is enough, so they try to invent more convoluted reasons for where things originate and how they work. It really starts out as just an issue of pragmatism.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
I note the 'lean toward' . Indicating that no one knows for sure. |
Very true, but I don't think anyone has really claimed that yet.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Kid, I've got a question.
You believe that each society either has or could have different morals.
Fair enough.
The logical question, though, is whether or not you believe that each moral standard is equally valid, objectively speaking. That is, does any one society's moral standard have an objective claim to being more correct/valid, or are they all pretty much the same?
If they are all the same, then it's pretty tough for you to criticize Nazi Germany from a moral standpoint, and if that's the case, then objectively speaking, there was no moral basis for the Nuremburg trials.
The only way around this is to say that the overriding moral principle is that might makes right. This not only destroys the belief that all morals are equally valid, because we just found an overriding moral principle, but it also makes the concept of morals pretty much irrelevant anyway.
Now, on the other hand, maybe you believe that there IS some way to judge a society's morals, other than on the basis of might makes right. Granted, you seem to have been arguing against this, but I could have misunderstood you, and I'm interested in a clarification.
So which is it? Do you want to admit that ultimately you believe "might makes right" is the overriding moral principle, or do you want to admit that there is some other overriding moral principle? |
I do believe that morality is either right or wrong. Whether morality is right or wrong has a limited effect on what people believe however. They mostly follow their self-interest. Believing something actually helps you survive and prosper. So people fool their mind into believing that killing is not murder under certain circumstance, for example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
How does the US fare? |
Think that one up all by yourself? Whaddya got, a team of monkeys hooked up to your keyboard?
But what the hell, I'll respond in a serious manner:
First off, the USA =! IJ or the Nazis. Putting aside the differences between, say, the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking and the current operation in Fallujah (why even bother debating that if you think they are comparable?), let's look at it from another angle. The Nazis and the IJ had policies which led directly to them facing major world powers in open warfare. Thus far, our policies are not set up that way. In fact, much wailing and gnashing of teeth has resulted from our tendancy to "pick on" weak and/or failed countries. Terrorism, the irritation we are much preoccupied with, is the result of wackos without political power trying to hurt us. Tactics of the weak, Kid. We're not fighting the USSR here.
Now, one could claim that a continuation of our current policies might result in our downfall, but that's far from certain. Personally, I do think our government has made several policy mistakes that have hurt us - but that's a far cry from the concept of Lebensraum which led the Nazis into the Russian winter and to their doom.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Societies very much do follow the rules of evolution. How many slave or feudal societies do you see lying around? As for structures and customs which aren't useful, evolution is driven by traits which aren't useful (and aren't harmful) which become useful when the environment changes. |
Bad reasoning. There are far fewer volcanoes around today than there used to be, is that the result of evolution? No, it's the result of physical processes. Hey, you could probably make a case that societies follow the rules of geophysics; social upheavals, social pressure leading to a social eruption, glacier-like social change, tidal fashions and trends. But you'd still be thinking in metaphors.
Societies are not living things. Nor are they geographical phenomenon. Or ecosystems (which is another obvious metaphor). Societies are societies.
Ballet isn't just a 'mutation' which appeared one day. It's a social institution, with its own history, language and infrastructure, bound together by in an assortment of ways.
If you think society 'evolves' in the same way as living creatures, it's about as likely to appear in a society as a mountain goat is to develop fully-functioning gills.
Oh, and was Bush's re-election evolution?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Think that one up all by yourself? Whaddya got, a team of monkeys hooked up to your keyboard?
But what the hell, I'll respond in a serious manner:
First off, the USA =! IJ or the Nazis. Putting aside the differences between, say, the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking and the current operation in Fallujah (why even bother debating that if you think they are comparable?), let's look at it from another angle. The Nazis and the IJ had policies which led directly to them facing major world powers in open warfare. Thus far, our policies are not set up that way. In fact, much wailing and gnashing of teeth has resulted from our tendancy to "pick on" weak and/or failed countries. Terrorism, the irritation we are much preoccupied with, is the result of wackos without political power trying to hurt us. Tactics of the weak, Kid. We're not fighting the USSR here.
Now, one could claim that a continuation of our current policies might result in our downfall, but that's far from certain. Personally, I do think our government has made several policy mistakes that have hurt us - but that's a far cry from the concept of Lebensraum which led the Nazis into the Russian winter and to their doom.
-Arrian |
The only difference between us and the Nazis is that we don't attack enemies that can fight back. What does that have to do with morality anyway?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
I do believe that morality is either right or wrong. Whether morality is right or wrong has a limited effect on what people believe however. |
OK, I see the confusion. What you are calling "right or wrong" - that is, the overriding standard for judging what you term "morality" - is actually what the rest of us mean by morality. Where does THAT come from, and how can different conceptions of THAT be measured?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I agree with Che. Man can't be separated from his origin- human beings are social apes- our basic common humanity flows from our basic shared ancestry. Our core values are those rules needed to have a succesful band of social apes. Obviously, even in Ape bands there is always a tension between the Individual and The Group, because in the end every individual is driven to survive and spread their genes, but being in a group improves their chances against even greater forces around.
This is why all societies have rules against murder, which invariably always begin as ules against killing members of your own group, with little regard to others outside. The same for rules about theft (which before trinkets obviously applied to basic needs like food) and sexual mores (probably the biggest headache given the biological imperative).
Our intelligence not only has allowed human beings to make up all sort of new tools and gadgest, but perhaps our greatest strength was the ability to make up new rules and structures to organize ever larger social groups. In most animal species, there is a limit to size of the group before it collapses under its weight. BY being able to conceptualize new rules for behavior human beings have been able to inhabit groups in the millions. These greater concepts are not standard, as there are multiple ways to solve the various problems that having massive human groups create amongst themselves. |
I agree with you that humans are social animals out of self-interest. However, I disagree that that creates 'basic' morality. Morality changes as our interests change and the power structures within society changes. For example, murder is considered immoral until the rulers find it in their interest that in certain cases it should be moral, specifically when someone pisses them off enough or threatens their status.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I agree with you that humans are social animals out of self-interest. However, I disagree that that creates 'basic' morality. Morality changes as our interests change and the power structures within society changes. For example, murder is considered immoral until the rulers find it in their interest that in certain cases it should be moral, specifically when someone pisses them off enough or threatens their status. |
The precursors of human beings were also social beings-humans did not "have a choice", Humans have always been social- the very fact that human babies are utterly helpless for so long smacks of a social being.
The core human values never change-human beings have always been able to break them if some temporary situation made them think such an action was worth it, but again, the basics remain.
As for Murder, as i said, the idea always begins as not killing anyone in your group- human beings, by being sentient, can always conceptualize groups of any size, even ones with just one member, and retionalize killing anyone outside of it.
The notion that Law= morality comes after the creation of complex societies in which laws are necessary. It then becomes an imperative to cement the bonds of the bigger group, and a great way to do so is to make Law and morals mean the same.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
But I believe that if human beings all had the same interests with no biases and were treated equally that they would have similar morals. |
Interesting. That's VERY similar to the argument presented by Berzerker (and the argument I most agree with) - that is, objective morality defined by the universal shared desires of life and liberty.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2004 00:29
That's gotta hurt Kid though... 
|