Morality, Immorality, & Amorality

[Dante]

On what do you base these claims?

[emprworm]

simply my amoral opinions.  kind of like your amoral opinion that Bush was wrong.  I have things in my logical opinions that are also wrong.  ;)

[Dante]

Bush was logically wrong to invade another country because it caused deaths and problems that could have been avoided. It also removed a person who was not a threat when he was claimed to be. This is logical reasoning.

Now please logically explain to me for each of your statements what your basis is.

[emprworm]

Bush was logically wrong to invade another country because it caused deaths and problems that could have been avoided. It also removed a person who was not a threat when he was claimed to be. This is logical reasoning.

Now please logically explain to me for each of your statements what your basis is.

Bush was logically right to invade another country because it caused less deaths than would have caused otherwise with inaction and problems solved that could not be avoided.  It also removed a person who was threat to millions.  This is logical reasoning.

[Caid Ivik]

Even if we have a moral statement, it is much harder. Morale of ie Kant is way different than ie that of Kierkegard or Nietzsche. For Kant is the highest thing to serve the society, Kierkegard said to go even against it, if it helps our spirituality, even if it hurts very ourselves. "Moral" doesn't need to be automatically beneficial.

[Dante]

Very true Caid.

And Emprworm, I didn't ask you to attempt to prove me wrong, I asked you to attempt to prove yourself right. This means, in case you can't remember, that you must give logical reasons for each of the following:

people that dislike Bush are wrong.

people that are against the war are wrong

comitting incest is wrong

comitting polygamy and homosexuality is wrong

taking drugs is wrong

not liking me is wrong

i am amoral.

I'm waiting.

[Caid Ivik]

But primarily, my view is that it is moral to be moral for any cost, even when it is against society, when it isn't beneficial. True moralty means independence on logical conclusion, Anselm would say. Altough logic is the best pillar.

[Dante]

Objective morality, belief that there are certain moral facts. That is, if I've interpreted you correctly, Caid.

[Caid Ivik]

Not believe. You can be moral only if you have that moralty fixed in your soul. How you do react on conflicting situation even before you start thinking. It's more subjective, tough it depends if you stay with christians, Kant etc, each has own form.

[Dante]

But is one of them correct? I say no, Emprworm I think says yes so long as he isn't attempting to mock me, and you say...?

[Caid Ivik]

Correct is the one, which drives you. You have your moralty, every human has. Maybe you have rather else one than others, so you just can't find yourself in definitions made by philosophers or religions. Differences can be between forms and scales.

[Dante]

Hmm. You may be more subjective than I first imagined. Ok, on what do you personally base your moral opinions?

If you have any that is. I try not to.

[Caid Ivik]

You can't try. Moralty is a thing you don't have control of. You can't erase daimonion, you can only seek for justification of evil, which will be like an illusionical cloak, tendering effect of guilt feeling. But there are things, where you simple have no moral feeling, what you take "an sich", not as you see it. That thing is fully independant on you, you don't reach it by moralty, so you can have logically objective view on it.

I haven't fully mapped my internal moralty codex. I think I'm close to judeochristian model. But not sure. I'm too young to find out yet.

[Dante]

As I expected, Emprworm is making no move to prove himself as I requested.

[emprworm]

As I expected, Emprworm is making no move to prove himself as I requested.

im just making no move to prove myself again is all.

[Dante]

You haven't proven yourself once. Let alone again. Besides, if you can do what I ask this time then you've proven yourself capable of being amoral, isn't that what you want?

[emprworm]

You haven't proven yourself once. Let alone again. Besides, if you can do what I ask this time then you've proven yourself capable of being amoral, isn't that what you want?

already have.

[Wolf]

Isn't that just plain utilitarianism? Or am I thinking of something else?

[Dante]

Yet again, Emprworm, I must remind you that this is not the central issue here. Your task right now is nothing to do with trying to justify your deified Dubya. You must amorally justify each of these statements:

people that dislike Bush are wrong.

people that are against the war are wrong

comitting incest is wrong

comitting polygamy and homosexuality is wrong

taking drugs is wrong

not liking me is wrong

i am amoral.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dust Scout no matter how hard you try.. you will not be like Spock or Data from Star Trek and be completely emotionless and make only logical statements and choices.....

sorry he is a fictional character..... and your a real person...

[Dante]

If you had been paying attention, Gunwounds, you would have noticed that I have never made any claim at all to be free of emotions. Never once. And I have already mentioned that I am not entirely devoid of morals either, though it's close.

It is true that I am not completely and entirely 100% amoral, but I'm amoral enough to count as amoral in most debates. You are not amoral, as far as I know, and neither is Billy Graham.

...Whoever he is....

[Dante]

Again, as expected, the moment I point out that this discussion has nothing to do with Bush, Emprworm abandons it.

[emprworm]

Again, as expected, the moment I point out that this discussion has nothing to do with Bush, Emprworm abandons it.

i abandoned it because you were going around in circles.  i don't buy your 'amoral' view at all, because whenever you talk about Bush, the emotion starts pouring forth.  THis next statement has nothing to do with logical conclusion you made:  You dont like him.  and its as simple as that.

[Dante]

Yes, and I don't like him for completely amoral reasons. You don't seem to be able to grasp that amoral does not mean absence of emotions, it means absence of morals. I hate Bush, yes. I loathe the cretin; I abhor everything he does, everything he stands for, he is foul, disgusting, repulsive... but not evil. Evil does not exist for an amoral person.

I'm going to repeat myself slowly and in block capitals so that you can read it without someone to help you, ok?

AMORAL DOES NOT MEAN 'NO EMOTIONS.' IT MEANS 'NO MORALS.'

It is possible to hate something without finding it morally 'wrong.' If someone doesn't like pasta, does that make them believe pasta is 'evil' ?

But ( yet again) I have to point out that me not liking him has nothing to do with this argument. This argument is about theoretical morality, immorality, and amorality. You have not yet grasped this.

However, you have also failed to answer my request. You stated;

people that dislike Bush are wrong.

people that are against the war are wrong

comitting incest is wrong

comitting polygamy and homosexuality is wrong

taking drugs is wrong

not liking me is wrong

i am amoral.

[emprworm]

from one of your "amoral" perspectives, its quite easy:

"people that dislike Bush are wrong."

-A subjective opinion I have of people that dislike Bush based upon the observation that Bush has logical grounds for the war.  Hence, those that dislike him as a result of rejecting logical grounds for war are illogical, hence wrong.

"people that are against the war are wrong"

-A subjective opinion I have of people that dislike the war based upon the observation that Bush has logical grounds for the war.  Hence, those that dislike the war as a result of rejecting logical grounds for war are illogical, hence wrong.

"comitting incest is wrong"

-A subjective opinion I have of people that commit incest based upon the observation that incest is cause for health risks, and poses a disruption to a stable western society that I live in.  Hence, my logical conclusion is that such behavior is wrong.

"comitting polygamy and homosexuality is wrong  -"

-A subjective opinion I have of the acts (not the people) of homosexuality are wrong based upon the observation that in order for a species to evolve, and according to the fundamental tenent of darwinism, evolution must and can ONLY occur during the propogation of the species.  Since said homosexuals are unable to propogate, they represent a flaw in the species...similar to a harmful mutation.  Is it natural?  Of course it is...just like cannibalism and infanticide in the animal kingdom are natural.  is it beneficial?  For the purposes of correcting the overpopulated homosapien species, yes. It is a correcting mechanism.  But the logical conclusion I reach is that just because it is one of natures correcting mechanisms for overpopulation doesn't make it GOOD.  Disease is also a correcting mechanism that nature utilizes to adjust for population.  it all fits precisely into darwinian theory.  Thus, the only conclusion is that although homosexuality is a mutation ...a correcting mechanism (which has a good effect by reducing population), it is still wrong because it represents the enablement of the correcting mechanism (which is similar to a disease)- the ends do not justify the means.

"taking drugs is wrong"

-A subjective opinion I have of people that take drugs comit crimes against society more often than those that do not. 

"not liking me is wrong"

-Since I work entirely within the framework of logic, to not like me is to have no rational basis to do so. Hence those that do not like me are wrong.

i am amoral.  all of my above statements completely lack moral claims in them.  All explanations are completely amoral