Ladies and gentlemen, we've got him!

[Acriku]

Having a supreme judge doesn't make the resulting morality any more supreme than the rest. It just puts an authority on the morality, which may or may not exist.

[Warskum]

Because it does give me something back. :)

I know more now than I did. I know more people than I did. I understand more viewpoints and I have refined my argumentative skills.

I have met interesting people; some of whom I may be so impressed by I try to imitate them. I could go on, but in short I know that being here has been... very benificial.

Not to mention quite enjoyable.

TMA-1: I believe what is proven to me. There may or may not be a higher judge. Simply because I do not believe in one does not mean that one does not exist. We did a short project in philosophy class on moral philosophy once. There were two basic divisions; Objective and Subjective.

Objectivists believe that there is a definate moral code which can be applied to all people and all situations. It is their purpose through whatever means they can to find it. It surpasses all other morals and is universally justifiable.

Subjectivists on the other hand believe that morals are relitive to the situation they are used in. A different situation will adapt to different morals and thus something so inflexable as a universal code has no place. Thus, morals are a matter of opinion.

I am, as those of you who are mor astute will have guessed by now, a subjectivist. I see no evidence that one moral code is in any way superior to another. Yes, some cause more pain than others, but why is that universally a bad thing? 'Bad' and 'Good' are relitive concepts, subjective. They depend on opinion. And thus any moral perspective based on them (all objective ones) are flawed at the most basic level.

Consequentially, subjective morals are the only logical choice.

Sheesh, why do I keep writing too much?

Edric: Yes, your society is indeed a (slightly nauseating) perfection of harmony and peace on earth. It is also completely fictional, no offence. You know as well as I do (hmm, more agreement...) that humans are selfish, egotistical, self-centred, foul, jumped-up monkeys. As a society anyway. Individuals are another matter. And power to the people will never work because the people all want the same thing, to be number 1. The difference is that some of them admit it, and others don't.

Your society is perfect but unachievable. Mine is not perfect, but it is all too easy to achieve. And it gives us freedom to do what we really want to do. None of this stuffy modern government watching stuff. People would fight with knives (or in my case a makeshift trident) because the vast majority of them want to. The reason blood sports existed is because people enjoyed them. And people haven't changed since roman gladitorial combat, they just think they have. If people didn't want to hurt each other, or didn't think it necessary, then your society would exist. The very fact that it doesn't proves that it can't because humans have always wanted or needed to hurt each other and always will.

The difference is that I know this, while you still have hope for this sad, suicidal little species.

As long as there are ppl who think and live like you, there wont be peace on earth.

[Dude_Doc]

DustScout: Try out this question then.

Let's imagine that you live on a fictional planet. You are you, but the world you live in is ravaged by plauges and wars and so on. Basically, people live in misery (not so different from the world we live in today). One day, you are given the ability to stop all wars, to cure all plauges, to make people live in peace ever after. All it takes is that you wave your hand.

But there is a catch, as usual. Nobody will ever know who made this happen. You won't be given any money, you won't be famous. You'll still have to go to school, do your homework, pay your taxes, and so on.

The question is this then: would you do it?

[Acriku]

I think the easiness of the moving the hand makes it easier to say yes. At that great of a feat, there should be a great price to go along with it, some sacrifice that would make you noble and very unselfish. Then, it'd be harder to really do it if the deed is not recognized.

[nampigai]

that the few money you spend on charety works and helps should be satisfaction enough, but it's allways easy not to care when you are privileged....

[SurlyPIG]

It's pretty plain to see that in an absolute natural state, humanity is greedy, selfish, and hedonistic and willing to resort to resort to any deed to satisfy such desires. Thankfully, we are creatures of fear and in order to function in a society we waive our 'natural right' to murder/steal/conquer in order to receive protection from murder/theft/conquering. In other words, we agree to do no evil in order to have no evils done to us. This is by no means a bad or evil thing in itself if one values social order and justice. I think Dust Scout either hasn't expressed this clearly enough or has exaggerated this phenomenon to a sick and twisted level and is thus misunderstood.

Dust Scout's misconception seems to lie in the idea that we, as a species, are still in the primitive natural state. Well, we're not. We are ruled by fear and greed, but society channels those emotions into equitable, manageable, fair practices. As mentioned above, we agree to do no harm in exchange for protection from harm. This is as ancient as human society itself. There are, of course, a few people who defy this and are thus labeled as criminals and removed from society as per the 'contract' of society, but these people are few and far between. I'm talking about serious things like murder or grand larsony here, not J-walking. It's all about doing something undesireable in order to have access to something more desireable.

On the flip side of the coin, as a society we actively contribute out of feer and out of greed to communal causes that everyone has access to. It's why we pay taxes, for things like protection against crime, protection from disaster, disease accident etc. On the greed side we contribute communally (because it's more effective) to things everybody uses like roads and public facilities. This is a newer aspect of human society, but it's still based on the idea that people will do something undesireable (give a portion of their income, in this case) to have access to something more desireable (protection, convenience, luxury etc.)

Oh yeah, and good for gettin' Saddam 'n' stuff...

[Dante]

Warskum: That depends. Peace can be brought about by everyone wanting it, which is unlikely. Or it can be brought about through lack of choice, fear, intimidation, etc. Or simply through keeping the populance in ignorance. You seem to think peace can only be brought about by the first, I on the other hand think that the other two are just as satisfactory. People like me do nothing to harm the bringing about of peace, we just go about getting it differently.

DudeDoc: This is a more difficult question... Not for the reason you want it to be though. Given a choice I expect I would wave my hand because it automatically benifits me as well as I am part of the population. However, I do not believe that perfect peace can exist because everyone's definition is different. And if everyone's opinions were changed to make their definition of perfect peace the same then that's taking away free will. And believe it or not I'm very against that. Free will is very important. Expressing it now... that's different.

NaMpIgAi: It's easy not to care anyway.

ACElethal:

It's pretty plain to see that in an absolute natural state, humanity is greedy, selfish, and hedonistic and willing to resort to resort to any deed to satisfy such desires. Thankfully, we are creatures of fear and in order to function in a society we waive our 'natural right' to murder/steal/conquer in order to receive protection from murder/theft/conquering. In other words, we agree to do no evil in order to have no evils done to us. This is by no means a bad or evil thing in itself if one values social order and justice. I think Dust Scout either hasn't expressed this clearly enough or has exaggerated this phenomenon to a sick and twisted level and is thus misunderstood.

Close. My 'problem' is that I dislike most modern forms of government because they are so restrictive. I believe that... how can I put this? That a society that stops our natural urges (muder/steal/conquer) is denying who we are, and that's a bad thing. Put it this way; I'd rather society was truthful than peaceful.

Dust Scout's misconception seems to lie in the idea that we, as a species, are still in the primitive natural state. Well, we're not. We are ruled by fear and greed, but society channels those emotions into equitable, manageable, fair practices. As mentioned above, we agree to do no harm in exchange for protection from harm. This is as ancient as human society itself. There are, of course, a few people who defy this and are thus labeled as criminals and removed from society as per the 'contract' of society, but these people are few and far between. I'm talking about serious things like murder or grand larsony here, not J-walking. It's all about doing something undesireable in order to have access to something more desireable.

Society changes what we are. You got it. This foul, omnipresent, ever-watchful, insidious thing we know as society changes who we naturally are. Back to being truthful rather than peaceful. Better to live truthfully than deny who we are. We haven't changed from the primitive state. We're just as warlike and (for the most past) xenophobic as we've ever been and there is no changing that because to change it we would have to stop being human (not necessarily a bad thing).

Humans are a violent, selfish, evil species. What other has caused more destruction, enviromental devastation, or extinction than our own? We are a foul race. I have accepted that. I don't like it; I'd like nothing better than to have been born something else. As a dark elf maybe. But I'm making the best of the situation and accepting that I am a part of a disgusting plague on this planet.

Society. Pff. What's so valuable about this society? Not only has it never done much for me but it has been poisoning itself from the very beginning. On the other hand it's probably because it's been harming itself that it's doing so little for me. For any of us. We'd be happier as warlike individuals. It's not a pleasent truth, but it's the truth.

Hmmm... Maybe I should have made a seperate topic for this...

[Atomic Mitten]

Humans are a violent, selfish, evil species. What other has caused more destruction, enviromental devastation, or extinction than our own? We are a foul race. I have accepted that. I don't like it; I'd like nothing better than to have been born in another place, another world. As a dark elf maybe. But I'm making the best of the situation and accepting that I am a part of a disgusting plague on this planet.

Not all of us are like that Dust scout, you seem to think all humanity are the same, we are not !

Some people do actually care about their fellow man, please don't make sweeping statements about others.

Secondly I agree with you , it would have been better if you had been born on another planet or place.

[Anathema]

We'd be happier as warlike individuals.

No, and that's the whole point of Hobbes' theory. Foremost humans want to survive, and because of our natural instinct to preserve ourselves we have formed a social covenant to escape our natural state.

[Dante]

There exceptions to every rule, Atomic Mitten. But you may be less correct than you know. May be. Why exactly do you care for your fellow humans?

And you may not agree with what I'm saying but it is better that you have read it than never thought about it. You can refute and attempt to persuade now.

And the point I was making was that I'd rather be someone else not somewhere else. A different species rather than a different place. That just happens to be a side effect.

[Atomic Mitten]

Are you trying to take Nav's place ?

[EWS]

Some people do actually care about their fellow man, please don't make sweeping statements about others.

Dust Scout made a statement that can be fully backed up.  Part of it anyway.  Each human in his or her lifetime has been "bad".  Be it calling someone a name, laughing at someone, not putting their rubbish in the bin, or not recylcling.  The list is really endless.  Humans really have a flaw in thinking too big, too general, the "big things" do not govern the world, the "small things" do.

Has every human gone to war?  No.  Has every human killed something?  Yes.  Do humans control the world? Yes.  Are humans that majority on the planet? Absolutly not.

[Atomic Mitten]

You seem to know him. ;)

[EWS]

Yes i do know him, considering I am from the same town and attend the same school as him.  Oh and I am in the same Philosophy class as him!  Got a problem with it?

[Atomic Mitten]

That figures !

[EWS]

What figures?  The fact that we are from the same town?  Ill actually have you know that me and him are completly different people.  COMPLETLY different

[Dante]

Well we're both male but the similarity mostly stops there...

You know EWS I go to great lengths to hide my exact location, don't feel like you have to go advertising the name of the dingy little backwater we live in.  :P  Not necessarily in this thread but you get the idea.

Nonetheless, thanks for the support.

And Atomic Mitten; when are you to stop comparing me to people I disagree with (Hitler, Navaros) and start making constructive arguments that use logic rather than emotive circumlocution?

[Atomic Mitten]

And Atomic Mitten; when are you to stop comparing me to people I disagree with (Hitler, Navaros) and start making constructive arguments that use logic rather than emotive circumlocution?

When you stop sounding like them !

Your Philosophy teacher has alot to answer for. ;)

[Dante]

Give me an example of how I sound like those two. Quote them, and quote me. Hitler hated people discriminantly, Navaros hated people for petty reasons. I hate people indiscriminantly and because they deserve no better. Big difference.

And incidently, we don't do political philosophy in class.

[Atomic Mitten]

::)

[Dante]

You're not proving your point by doing that you know. You think that my arguments defeat themselves and they do not. If you want to prove me wrong, you'll have to do it yourself because I won't.

Grow up.

[Atomic Mitten]

You have absolutely no idea what I think !

And for you to tell me to grow up, that's a real laugh.

So Warskum is wrong when he says people don't have a sense of humour.You just proved that they have.

[Dante]

...I don't know why I bother sometimes. You are doing absolutely nothing constructive to further your points or refute mine. Your debate is pathetic, your arguments paltry, your evidence nonexistant. How can you expect to be proven right without even arguing properly?

Until you start working on this there's no reason for me to reply again.

[Atomic Mitten]

Thank God for that ! read your own last 50 posts, they are proof enough.(I don't need to be proven right) that is the point your missing.

I am not going to bother wasting my time answering your rants either.So we can agree to disagree.

[Anathema]

Atomic: you seem to have a higher impression of humans then Dust Scout do, and think that humans actually care what happens to people they have nothing to do with.

Any idea how many people wear shoes that were made using child labour in third world countries? Everybody knows this, yet they keep wearing them. Any idea how many people are dying at this very moment because of lack of medical attention? Westerners could donate their life savings (or part of it) to help those childrens but most of them wouldn't donate as much as a penny. In a western country thousends would protest if the government should decide to cut the health care budget by 5% (because it affects them) but how many people are going on the streets if they cut aid to third world countries? Patheticly few people would show up.

Some people can live with themselves because they think (correctly) that nothing they do will have much effect, but more importantly, people can live with themselves like this because they value their luxury higher then the lives of people on the other side of the world. Most people wouldn't even admit this to themselves, let alone others. Dust Scout does.