1381 réponses à ce sujet

[Sisterofshane]

Arkitekt wrote...

I like how this discussion was diverted to morality and now religion.

Of course, in this respect I side with Saphra a 100%. The only commenter here who has a clue on how fragile our moral systems really are, and how they ultimately rest in every one of us, not any unreal reference such as the naive "Greater good" (what the **** is that? Who gets to define it? You? Ah!) or any non-existent deity.

someone else also makes the correct questioning that if the ends do not measure up to what was promised, do the means still make any sense? Well, I think you are confused here. Because take for instance the Holocaust. If our "favorite" Chancellor of german's history had actually caused the extinction of a certain ethnic, was it "justified"? Well, Saphra has the correct answer here, it depends to whom you are justifying and what criteria you are demanding. If you think that destroying a whole ethnic is a good thing (Which is a proposition that would have to be shown independently), then it would probably have been justifiable. But no if you don't.

When do arguments about Cerberus NOT boil down to morality/ethics and religion?

 Is it truly "reasonable" to murder your ex-spouse only to obtain custody of your kids?  Is it "right" to purchase goods manufactured with slave labor, only to save yourself some money?  Is it "just" to defame an individual so that you can win an election?  Obviously there are circumstances that COULD be used to justify these scenarios, but they all seem rather selfish, and it's a whole lot easier to justify something to yourself (especially when it is beneficial to you) then it is to someone else.

This is where the concept of "greater good" comes in.  Think about the above scenarios in the terms of the masses...

Was is better for your children to have a parent dead at the other parent's hand?
Do the workers in the industrial plant have a better quality of life because you saved a few dollars?
Do the constituents of the election truly have better representation because you won?

And there is no point in justifying anything in which someone didn't benefit.  Like Akuze.  There is a whole group of people dead, with a small handful living but being psychologically harmed, but where is the benefit?  What has Cerberus done with that research to make something, anything better?  THAT is where I take issue with Cerberus, when they are doing things that are needlessly violent and calling it a "necessity" in order to advance human interests.

[Dean_the_Young]

Arkitekt wrote...

Joking aside, there are plenty of good reasons why men do approve of abortion. Perhaps they love the idea of empowered women. People fall in love with ideas all the time.

Perhaps they don't want their wife to die from a miscarriage. Perhaps they think their child isn't ready to be a parent.


Or maybe he or she is a time-traveler who's learned that their descendent will be the next uber-dictator of evil.

[Maxius Artucus]

Arkitekt wrote...

Maxius Artucus wrote...

I don't think morality is a result of our own wants at all. Examples like men who support abortion and such, prove that this is not the case.

Please, I hadn't laughed all day and now you come here to make me spill my evening milk!!

You say that men would never support abortion? Are you kidding me? Only a non father to say such silly things! 

Joking aside, there are plenty of good reasons why men do approve of abortion. Perhaps they love the idea of empowered women. People fall in love with ideas all the time.

It does, however, have to do with how we were raised and what we were told is right and wrong. Selfish acts are nothing more then selfish acts. Morals however are deeply embed reasons.

So it's turtles all the way down. While true, that does not explain anything.

1. I think , well know, you read my first sentence wrong. But besides, that a man who supports abortion may simplely want better welfare to woman. What does this ever have to do with him in the long run? You can say deep down somewhere along the road it's a reason why, but the simple point is that his own benifit was not the true cause. He did it because he believed it was right, morally. Not a selfish plan.

2.  I don't understand the turtle point, but the jist is that morality is not a result of simply selfish acts. It's a lot more then that and you do as much injustice to your argument saying it is, then those who you argue with.

Modifié par Maxius Artucus, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:34 .

[someone else]

I do not question your motivations, and think no less laudable because they provide you spiritual and emotional sustenance.

Desire, however base or noble does, not rise to the level of moral principle however. As you note, desire, pleasure, satisfaction are individual and idiosycratic. Morality, on the other hand, is necessarily consensus-based, and whether arising out of canon or custom, requires a societal context in which to exist. That is why I disagree with you and Saphra on the concept of "justification" - which I believe must invoke either law or morality to have any semantic integrity. Justification does not mean "its OK because I think it is," which is where your arguments on this issue net out.

ps - mea culpa on the social darwinism misref. - misfunction at higher cortical levels.

Modifié par someone else, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:42 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Maxius Artucus wrote...

1. I think , well know, you read my first sentence wrong. But besides, that a man who supports abortion may simplely want better welfare to woman. What does this ever have to do with him in the long run? You can say deep down somewhere along the road it's a reason why, but the simple point is that his own benifit was not the true cause. He did it because he believed it was right, morally. Not a selfish plan.

Unless, of course, he wants the woman to have an abortion to maintain her in a state that makes him happy. In which case it would be 'selfish.'

If someone makes me happy when they are happy, me making them happy can still be considered selfish on my part.

2.  I don't understand the turtle point, but the jist is that morality is not a result of simply selfish acts. It's a lot more then that and you do as much injustice to your argument saying it is, then those who you argue with.

A lot of people (many? most?) object to injustice simply because it makes them feel uncomfortable. When it's out of sight, they don't care.

Their objection to it is less about selfless morality, and far more about how it makes them feel.

[Maxius Artucus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Unless, of course, he wants the woman to have an abortion to maintain her in a state that makes him happy. In which case it would be 'selfish.'

If someone makes me happy when they are happy, me making them happy can still be considered selfish on my part.

I think you are confused with the meaning of selfish -

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily
with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardlessof others.

2. Characterized by or manifesting concern or care only foroneself: selfish motives.

That nullifies the arguements you have made. I think you can figure out why.

Modifié par Maxius Artucus, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:43 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Maxius Artucus wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Unless, of course, he wants the woman to have an abortion to maintain her in a state that makes him happy. In which case it would be 'selfish.'

If someone makes me happy when they are happy, me making them happy can still be considered selfish on my part.

I think you are confused with the meaning of selfish -

1.devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarilywith one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardlessof others.
2.characterized by or manifesting concern or care only foroneself: selfish motives.

That exempts the arguements you have made.

No, it doesn't. One's own emotional satisfaction is just as valid a basis of selfish motivation as one's finances, physical health, or personal safety.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:44 .

[Maxius Artucus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
No, that is exactly the argument I made. One's own emotional satisfaction is just as valid a basis of selfish motivation as one's finances, physical health, or personal safety.

You are making no sense. Me sharing my cookie with my fellow peer makes me less happy then them. My own happiness is not exceeding their's therefore the act cannot be selfish.

Modifié par Maxius Artucus, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:45 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Maxius Artucus wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
No, that is exactly the argument I made. One's own emotional satisfaction is just as valid a basis of selfish motivation as one's finances, physical health, or personal safety.

You are making no sense. Me sharing my cookie with my fellow peer makes me less happy then them. My own happiness is not exceeding theres therefore the act cannot be selfish.

If you didn't have more personal satisfaction from giving your cookies, you wouldn't have shared them.

It may be because sharing the cookies makes you feel happy (a reward for doing an action), or you might feel guilt for not sharing them (a punishment for not doing the action).

Short of uninentinational actions or situations of total ambivalence, any emotional feeling from doing (or not doing) an action can be held against you.

[Maxius Artucus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Maxius Artucus wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
No, that is exactly the argument I made. One's own emotional satisfaction is just as valid a basis of selfish motivation as one's finances, physical health, or personal safety.

You are making no sense. Me sharing my cookie with my fellow peer makes me less happy then them. My own happiness is not exceeding theres therefore the act cannot be selfish.

If you didn't have more personal satisfaction from giving your cookies, you wouldn't have shared them.

It may be because sharing the cookies makes you feel happy (a reward for doing an action), or you might feel guilt for not sharing them (a punishment for not doing the action).

Short of uninentinational actions or situations of total ambivalence, any emotional feeling from doing (or not doing) an action can be held against you.

This sounds like the pivotal Freud thinkings that are soon becoming outdated, and seen as mere excuses for acceptance of selfishness and gluttony, which in itself is uncivilized and nothing new (or revolutionary). We'll just agree to disagree.

[onelifecrisis]

As Legion says, cooperation furthers mutual goals. Widespread adherence to "selfless" morals benefits the entire population (or more accurately, it benefits the population as a whole). Amoral anarchy (for want of a better term) does not.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:56 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Vasir is in no position to judge anybody. No Spectre is.

The ends do justify the means. History proves this time and time again.

I agree that Vasir is in no position to judge. No Spectre is. As far as "The ends do justify the means." That's quite ruthless. Machiavelli refuted this premise in his "Discourses". I would rephrase this.....

Sometimes the end can justify the means, but only if there is something to justify the end.

[Arkitekt]

Maxius Artucus wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Maxius Artucus wrote...

I don't think morality is a result of our own wants at all. Examples like men who support abortion and such, prove that this is not the case.

Please, I hadn't laughed all day and now you come here to make me spill my evening milk!!

You say that men would never support abortion? Are you kidding me? Only a non father to say such silly things! 

Joking aside, there are plenty of good reasons why men do approve of abortion. Perhaps they love the idea of empowered women. People fall in love with ideas all the time.

It does, however, have to do with how we were raised and what we were told is right and wrong. Selfish acts are nothing more then selfish acts. Morals however are deeply embed reasons.

So it's turtles all the way down. While true, that does not explain anything.

1. I think , well know, you read my first sentence wrong. But besides, that a man who supports abortion may simplely want better welfare to woman. What does this ever have to do with him in the long run? You can say deep down somewhere along the road it's a reason why, but the simple point is that his own benifit was not the true cause. He did it because he believed it was right, morally. Not a selfish plan.

"Plan"? That's the problem, I never mentioned any "planning". Men approve of abortion for many reasons. Perhaps they like the idea of getting out easy. Or, as I said (and you just ignored, instead resorting to say silly things like "you can't read"), with falling in love with ideas. People do this all the time. They just love their ideas, specially when they seem so harmonious and symmetrical, and revolutionary. And specially men. And so they'll wager their battles for their cherished revolutionary ideas. Nothing wrong with that. I also battle for my own ideas.

But that's because I love the ideas I have. I have a vision for the kind of world I would want to live in. And that world includes empowered women as well. Why? Because I love empowered women and can't stand the sight of the burka. I hate the sight of poor people as well. Etc. But this all stems from me and what I like. Not any "greater good" for which I do not defer to nor care about.

2.  I don't understand the turtle point, but the jist is that morality is not a result of simply selfish acts. It's a lot more then that and you do as much injustice to your argument saying it is, then those who you argue with.

I never mentioned "selfish acts". I said that you are the source of your own morality. And that your morality stems from your own desires. This is "selfish" in the sense that you are the major purpose of this system. One can be amazingly "altruistic", but let's not kid ourselves. The reasons are "selfish": either that person really gets a serotonin rush out of doing altruistic things or he thinks that by doing so he "elevates" himself (or gets to heaven), or he thinks that he is creating a better world (beneffiting himself if only indirectly).

The "system" is also highly complex, so no you won't have me say I believe in simplistic truths about morality. But we are what we are due to evolution, and we have a very good idea about the darwinian sources of our morals and even our altruisms.

[Dean_the_Young]

Maxius Artucus wrote...

This sounds like the pivotal Freud thinkings that are soon becoming outdated, and seen as mere excuses for acceptance of selfishness and gluttony, which in itself is uncivilized and nothing new (or revolutionary). We'll just agree to disagree.

It's rather apparent you don't understand Freud either, so there's nothing that can be done with that sort of informed opinion except to disagree.

[Arkitekt]

Maxius Artucus wrote...

This sounds like the pivotal Freud thinkings that are soon becoming outdated, and seen as mere excuses for acceptance of selfishness and gluttony, which in itself is uncivilized and nothing new (or revolutionary). 

What a bunch of poop. You have no idea whatsoever about what we are talking about.

[Maxius Artucus]

Wow. Great vocabulary. I know exactly what I'm talking about. You on the other hand are bearing out false beliefs that you wouldn't even act on and come out as childish philosophies. This started out a reasonable argument until the personal attacks. Wow.

Modifié par Maxius Artucus, 22 novembre 2011 - 01:15 .

[Arkitekt]

someone else wrote...

I do not question your motivations, and think no less laudable because they provide you spiritual and emotional sustenance.

Desire, however base or noble does, not rise to the level of moral principle however. As you note, desire, pleasure, satisfaction are individual and idiosycratic. Morality, on the other hand, is necessarily consensus-based, and whether arising out of canon or custom, requires a societal context in which to exist.

All fine and dandy, except for one detail: desires are the biological sources of morality, not the philosophical principles of it. You are not seemingly understanding this fulcral point.

That is why I disagree with you and Saphra on the concept of "justification" - which I believe must invoke either law or morality to have any semantic integrity. Justification does not mean "its OK because I think it is," which is where your arguments on this issue net out.

You also did not understand the point about justification. Of course that given the context of a society where tribunals are given authority on what is right and wrong, then you must invoke a discussion on law for a proper reading of morality. However, if we are discussing "justification" on a more general and abstract basis, we have no need of this. If we do something with our friends or lovers that they may or may not like or approve, the acceptance of the justification of our actions will always depend upon the audience intended to approve, not the "law" or any other concept.


Back to the theme of the thread, Cerberus clearly went out of the side of the law because they deemed that their purposes were not to appease the courts of Earth or the Citadel, but to make humanity survive at all costs. If you have this kind of purpose, and if the only scheme you can design of this happening involves things that the current "courts", "morals", etc. would find abhorrent, then the only options you may end up making is between die "morally right" (and who in the end is there to tell the tale of the Nice People Who Did No Wrong but are Dead Now, Eh Sucks Doesnt it?) or survive "with bad stuff" in some people's hearts. In this scenario, I would see Cerberus doing what they think is for the best, even if disapproved by the majority. Humanity's Dark Knight, so to speak.

[Arkitekt]

Maxius Artucus wrote...

Wow. Great vocabulary. I know exactly what I'm talking about. You on the other hand are bearing out false beliefs that you wouldn't even act on and come out as childish philosophies. This started out a reasonable argument until the personal attacks. Wow.

This isn't worth my time. You scolded opinions you clearly don't understand as obsolete "just like Freud", and now you even confuse adjectives towards opinions for "personal attacks". Bah.

[Dean_the_Young]

Maxius Artucus wrote...

Wow. Great vocabulary. I know exactly what I'm talking about. You on the other hand are bearing out false beliefs that you wouldn't even act on and come out as childish philosophies. This started out a reasonable argument until the personal attacks. Wow.

And now you're taking offense to imagined attacks.

[Dean_the_Young]

God damn it, Arkitekt, stop reading my mind and ninja-ing my posts!

[Maxius Artucus]

Arkitekt wrote...

Maxius Artucus wrote...

Wow. Great vocabulary. I know exactly what I'm talking about. You on the other hand are bearing out false beliefs that you wouldn't even act on and come out as childish philosophies. This started out a reasonable argument until the personal attacks. Wow.

This isn't worth my time. You scolded opinions you clearly don't understand as obsolete "just like Freud", and now you even confuse adjectives towards opinions for "personal attacks". Bah.

The Ayn Randish speak you are popping out is deathly similar to Freud's theories. I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. You should really read up. I could careless about the attacks but you are being overly hostile in your arguement cleary showing it has little base.

Also...if you are going to quote something...it should be exact.

And I'm out. Welt in your selfishness 

And Ayn Rand does not have to be mentioned for you to state her theory. Common sense.

Modifié par Maxius Artucus, 22 novembre 2011 - 01:24 .

[Dean_the_Young]

And now invoking the anti-Ayn Rand defense where there was none.

Nice touch on the parting slight, complete with a smile. That's not something you see from just about anyone.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 novembre 2011 - 01:24 .

[Arkitekt]

Jesus Frakking Christ. Please give me your head on a plate and spare the embarrassment. I had already flat-out denied the Ayn Rand connection with what I am speaking about, and now you go ahead and make the stupid uninformed link again. Furthermore, you actually think that Ayn Rand owes anything to Freud, which would be, to the actually informed, rather silly and histerically funny. If anything, Ayn Randian poop is completely naive about the subjects that Freud was trying to unravel (mostly unsucessfully), taking the subconscious and the conscious as something "rational" and logical.

Ayn Rand shows us marvelously how you cannot derive an ought from an is, by trying to actually do so and failing miserably.

Ayn Rand was an Objectivist, you know, someone who actually thought that morality was an Absolute which was searchable and Objective. We were making Moral Relativistic arguments, and yet you found Ayn Rand on them! How could you possibly be more mistaken?

It's so silly that only due to a form of tired boredom do I give one yota of attention to the sheer sillyness you are displaying here. Is there anything more ridiculous than the conjunction of ignorance with arrogance? (and yeah, *that* one was a personal attack!)

[Dean_the_Young]

Since you edited this in afterwards...

Maxius Artucus wrote...

And Ayn Rand does not have to be mentioned for you to state her theory. Common sense.

The principals of Ayn Rand's philosophy do need to be mentioned, however. Which they weren't.

You're just continuing to demonstrate that you don't understand  the philosophies or philosophers you're citing.

[Arkitekt]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

God damn it, Arkitekt, stop reading my mind and ninja-ing my posts!

It's like an echo here, ahaha.