Poor Holly

[Apollyon]

That wasn't the question, but nevermind. I don't think you're naive, I just think that you're thinking about this far too simplistically -- walking away would not be cowardice, it would be more likely and act of self-preservation. Helping would be an act of pack-instinct or some complex involving the desire to be a hero or so forth. I never said you "can't get anything out of this" and don't really understand what you mean, because you already stated that you got happiness from it -- and this is why you do it, as you stated in a previous post when you said it makes you happy to help people. Therefore you help people because it makes you happy, which is a motive of your own pleasure-seeking.

[alchemi2]

apollyon i don't get your point?

the simple point is would you do anything in the situation, Dustie states numerous times he wouldn't as its none of his business.

Nampigai states he would do something either shout or rush to aid, dependant on the situation.

Forget all the psycho babble or indepth bullshit. obviously by societies standards the right thing to do would be to help in someway eg call the cops or raise the alarm. so regardless of their motives Nam is morally right.

Dust Scout claims to have no moral standards therefore cannot be offend by someone taking the moral high ground as it is no value as far as he is concerned. No one who is not know to him personally can effect him as he cares nothing for them or their opinions.

[Dante]

Depends on the opinion. Some people's opinions I value quite highly. Besides, I think Apollyon's argument has a lot of merit.

[Timenn]

It is time someone gives nampigai the idea that is he not the only other person in the world who cares about other people. And who understands the rules this society is built on. This has nothing NOTHING to do with moralism, or heroism. We humans, live in a society. Societies can only exist with rules. Check all existing societies, and you will see. A group of lions have rules, a group of elephants. And so on and on. A society can simply not exist without rules. Those rules aren't only laws. Yes, alot of rules are included in the law (there is even a law that you are obliged to help people who are in serious trouble, in other words, you can't let a man hang at the edge of a cliff, while you can easily save him. And so you can't let a girl get raped without you doing a single thing about it) but there are also rules that aren't included. So there is a rule that you must tolerate other people, and a rule that you must help lost children find their parents. Many of these rules aren't written down, but they should be (and they are in every normal person) known to everyone.

So, for the sake of society, you should live by its rules. So if the rule is to help that girl, you must do it. Otherwise you cannot be a part of society...

What namp is trying to say, is that he does not help people to be some kind of hero, or that he gets a kick of helping people. But he would help because it is the right thing to do according to the standards we humans live with.

[Apollyon]

or that he gets a kick of helping people.

Actually he said that a few times. What makes a 'decent' human being is entirely subjective. The line between 'the rules of society' and 'morality' are indistinguishably blurred -- from where do you think the notion of morality originaly comes? Instinctual 'rules', as you have said. And why should we follow these rules bred into our flesh by evolution? Surely that is what we should avoid!? We strive to be more clear-thinking individuals who act according to logic, not according to some set of rules that we are simply told is 'right' but that in truth we have never questioned.

apollyon i don't get your point?

the simple point is would you do anything in the situation, Dustie states numerous times he wouldn't as its none of his business.

Nampigai states he would do something either shout or rush to aid, dependant on the situation.

Forget all the psycho babble or indepth bullshit. obviously by societies standards the right thing to do would be to help in someway eg call the cops or raise the alarm. so regardless of their motives Nam is morally right.

Dust Scout claims to have no moral standards therefore cannot be offend by someone taking the moral high ground as it is no value as far as he is concerned. No one who is not know to him personally can effect him as he cares nothing for them or their opinions.

See my above words. I suppose that because it's 'obvious which is the right thing' we should blindly follow what we have been told all our lives? The quote from George Bernard Shaw, "Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people." Sums up my perspective quite concisely. Stop it with the 'psycho babble and indepth bullshit'? Oh yeah because thinking about something in depth is bullshit... Why should we talk about psychology, afterall, even though it is absolutely pivotal to this discussion. That natural psychology is born of nature's evolution, and it is short-sightedness to say that 'in nature this does not occur so its unnatural and therefore immoral' because it simply does! And are these animals, these unthinking animals who follow instinct much as we do in deciding what is just, and what is unjust, do they have to go to a prison or be subjected to execution and so forth? No. It is only through societical evolution that are warped view of things has arisen -- along with political correctness and the brain-washing that comes alongside it.

so regardless of their motives Nam is morally right.

Only according to your moral and opinions can you judge in any way whether Nam is correct or incorrect in his chosen actions.

[Timenn]

Namp didn't say it, if he may mis-phrased some things, he surely corrected that in later statements. If you still don't understand what he is saying, maybe you should stop discussing with him, because you won't get any further.

And you are wrong that society rules never change. It used to be that no one was allowed to be different in the society, everyone should behave as normally possible. In the society we are living in right now there has changed alot. We are more tolerant (although not tolerant enough yet) Education has improved... nah... just compare it with something like the dark ages. I don't need to explain all what has improved...

And don't start talking about set rules with no room for individual thinking. You only try to slow this discussion. I'm not going to write an entire story about individual thinking in a society...

But the one thing that hasn't changed is that people should live together, we are species who live in groups. So we should care for each other. And if you don't want to be part of a group, then don't be part of it. And live completely on your own... 

[Apollyon]

Namp didn't say it, if he may mis-phrased some things, he surely corrected that in later statements. If you still don't understand what he is saying, maybe you should stop discussing with him, because you won't get any further.

And you are wrong that society rules never change. It used to be that no one was allowed to be different in the society, everyone should behave as normally possible. In the society we are living in right now there has changed alot. We are more tolerant (although not tolerant enough yet) Education has improved... nah... just compare it with something like the dark ages. I don't need to explain all what has improved...

And don't start talking about set rules with no room for individual thinking. You only try to slow this discussion. I'm not going to write an entire story about individual thinking in a society...

But the one thing that hasn't changed is that people should live together, we are species who live in groups. So we should care for each other. And if you don't want to be part of a group, then don't be part of it. And live completely on your own...

[Apollyon]

Also I found what you said about 'individual thinking' laughable as that's exactly what my argument is promoting. I think that if you looked at my post properly you'd understand that we're arguing on the same side...

[alchemi2]

So are you saying that rape and murder are an expression of indivdual thinking that should be allowed as it benefits society!!!

This smoke screen still avoids answering the origonal question, would you have aided the girl or ignore the situation as it was none of your business?

[Apollyon]

So are you saying that rape and murder are an expression of indivdual thinking that should be allowed as it benefits society!!!

Er, no. Where did I say that!?

This smoke screen still avoids answering the origonal question, would you have aided the girl or ignore the situation as it was none of your business?

I already stated I would help in an instant, and I was never avoiding the answering of that question as the question was never posed to me.

[Dante]

It was posed to me. And I answered it.

[Ninja_Sher]

If child pornography should be stopped for this reason, so should all pronography be. But my dear friends porno is multi-billion dollar business and run by some powerful people. Also a lot of people would be unhappy if it would be stopped.

[Dante]

There is, for some people, a difference between adult pornography and child pronography. The difference, as far as I can fathom, is that children are not legally able to give their consent, and are underage for sex in most cases anyway. Thus shutting down one massive industry is unlikely to impact much on the other.

Edit: Why did you bring this up?

[Anathema]

Appolyon, I disagree with your statement that we shouldn't pay attention to natural instincts. I agree that most (if not all) of our moral values can somehow be traced back to natural instincts- there's a small instinctual basis, and human reasoning carries it further. but I don't see why that makes it a bad thing per se. Most of these intincts are perfectly sensible anyway. (the natural aversion to murdering one of your own kind, for example) I think that these natural instincts are the cause of the fact that some societal rules are present in all civilizations in history, derived from the same instinctual basis. These instincts are what makes us "human", so why do away with them? What higher purpose do we serve with that?