No Harm Done: The Question of Morality
Pages
| Author | Topic: No Harm Done: The Question of Morality |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 09:36
Profile
This is an essay I wrote for my English class. I post it here now for two reasons: 1. I want some feedback. Is it logical? Do you agree/disagree? etc. 2. I would like to have it proofread for phrasing, spelling, grammar, citation, style, etc. (American standards, by the way. I don't always agree with these standards, but I am submitting it to an American literary magazine, and they'll probably want American standards.) I've gone over it several times, and it seems pretty good to me, but I just want to make absolutely sure before I submit it to UMass Boston's literary magazine, The Watermark. It's fairly long, so I don't blame you if you don't have time to read it, but here it is: --------------------------------------- No Harm Done – The Question of Morality An essay by me I was 15 years old at the time. I had been reluctant to attend my CCD classes all along (I was actually kicked out for the year a couple times), and this feeling only increased as I grew disgusted with my family's religion. CCD stands for Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, which is basically a Catholic indoctrination school. The joke among those less enthused with the idea of spending another hour learning each week after already spending six hours each day in regular school was that CCD stood for Central City Dump, and in my opinion, it's equally as accurate a name as the official one. At some point, an event occurred which finally convinced me to stop wasting my time and which set the construction of my current system of morals into motion. I had been attending CCD solely for the sake of achieving Holy Confirmation and therefore receiving presents from proud relatives. However, one Tuesday night, there was a class in which the teacher showed up and began preaching about how it is apparently a Hell-worthy sin to think “naughty thoughts,” even if you don't act on them. It was among the most illogical concepts I had ever heard. What person on Earth (besides Jesus of Nazareth, if you believe the church) goes through life without even once glancing at an attractive member of his preferred sex and thinking about bedding them, or wishing he could punch the jerk who was apparently in such a hurry that they had to roughly shove him aside? Apparently you can ask God to forgive you every time you commit the atrocious crime of being angry or lusty and thereby avoid eternal damnation, but then most people would be praying for the next five years just to catch up. Certainly you harm nobody but yourself by these thoughts (unless, for some inexplicable reason, some completely unobservable deity gets hit with a divine brick every time these thoughts occur, a situation for which we are highly unlikely to find any evidence within our lifetimes anyway). I walked out that day and never looked back. Through this and various other events and conversations during my life, I went from being a devout Catholic to being beyond agnostic. I just couldn't deal with the externally prescribed morals that nearly all religions embody, feeling strongly that people should be moral for reasons other than because they want some sort of personal reward; namely, because it just makes logical sense. Society simply functions better when people aren't going around raping, killing, and stealing. My experiences have led me to my own set of morals, which I try to follow as best I can. Specifically, I am of the firm belief that if it doesn't harm anyone or anything in any way, be it physically, emotionally, or financially, then there's no reason why it should be considered wrong. That is not to say that all things that do hurt someone are wrong, of course. If a young child misbehaves, for instance, his parents would be right in giving him a time-out, even though the child would feel emotional pain, ephemeral as it may be. However, if one person were to harm another to benefit him- or herself, with very little or no benefit to the victim or anyone else, it would most likely be wrong. (I am reluctant to speak in absolutes with regards to morals, as the world we live in contains a great deal of variety in circumstance that is rarely adequately covered by blanket rules; hence, I said “most likely.” This is the basis for a large part of my system of beliefs, but I digress.) These are probably unpopular and controversial beliefs, given the general moral standpoint of society, but these concepts mean thinking “naughty thoughts,” saying “'swear words,” and having the various “sexually deviant” fantasies (and in many cases, but by no means all of them, even engaging in the behaviors associated with these fantasies) are not always morally objectionable in my book. My mother was driving me home from an appointment one evening. She had the radio on, as she always does when she drives, although she was not really listening to it. It was some sort of commentary segment between songs. The caller said something about the problems caused by the “---damn Islamic terrorists,” and the host agreed with him. They discussed terrorism for a while, then began to discuss Islam itself, one of them calling it a violent and hateful religion. The other agreed. As they moved on to the subject of the upcoming election, I thought briefly about how odd it was that they were forbidden to take the Christian god's generic nickname in vain, yet were able to freely call Islam, practiced by a very large portion of the world's population, “violent and hateful.” The general population's staunch opposition to swearing in publicly accessible places and on publicly accessible broadcasts is fairly surprising, when you consider that most of us swear occasionally ourselves, some of us quite often. Some people even swear incessantly in front of their children. I find it to be quite a strange thing to discourage, given that anyone who goes out in public for any length of time will inevitably hear someone cussing at someone or something eventually, regardless of how much it is frowned upon. There are also the common arguments against censorship of specific words. Although I can't take full credit for them (the website where I read an argument to this effect which particularly affected my thoughts on this subject is listed in the bibliography, entry 1), I will briefly summarize the arguments here for your convenience. The “S-word” (begrudgingly censored here for the sake of the faint of heart) and the word “poopies” have the exactly the same meaning, yet one is censored and one is not. One could argue that the former has a negative connotation and the latter does not, therefore the former should be censored. However, the words “rancid” and “fetid” also have negative connotations. Therefore, logically, either “rancid” and “fetid” should be censored or no words should be censored for having a negative connotation. One could also argue that words like the “B-word” and the “N-word” should be censored because their use is mainly to insult others. However, the phrase “slow-witted, pig-headed Neanderthal” is also insulting, yet is not censored. Therefore, either the aforementioned phrase should be censored or no words should be censored for being insulting. As for the situation with the radio show, it is yet another example of one group's illogical morals being thrust upon others. I find that I am at odds with what it is clearly a large enough part of society as to require legislation, in that I don't believe swearing is wrong, in most cases. It certainly doesn't hurt anyone, except when the person who hears it chooses to be offended by it. It can hurt someone emotionally when it is used to insult, but the same can be said for “slow-witted, pig-headed Neanderthal,” so my conclusion is that it is generally more immoral to insult people with the intention of hurting them than simply to say “swear words” instead of their myriad euphemisms. I was sitting in a high school history class. The teacher had gotten done what he needed to get done that day and decided he didn't want to teach anymore. As everyone sat around idly, I overheard a conversation between the teacher and two students. They were discussing morality, and as inevitably occurs in most modern discussions of morality, the subject of homosexuality came up. They discussed the reasons for and against homosexual marriage, and eventually decided that it was okay because homosexuality was natural. They then extended the conversation to pedophilia, concluding that while homosexuality was natural and therefore okay, pedophilia was most certainly unnatural and therefore morally wrong. It was a conversation I must have heard a thousand times, but this time it made me think. The bell rang, and as they went their separate ways, I found myself coming to a logical conclusion I never thought I would. I have always found “naturalness” to be a poor qualifier for morality. Many will claim that various “sexual deviancies” are immoral because they are “unnatural,” yet they routinely wear polyester-blend shirts and live in man-made homes, which are certainly not natural objects. Even if unnatural things were necessarily wrong, there is considerable evidence that these “deviancies” are, in fact, natural, such as the highly publicized case of the lesbian swans in the Boston Public Garden (homosexuality)[2], or the case of the male duck that chased another male duck until the pursued crashed into a window and died, at which point the surviving duck mounted the dead one (homosexual necrophilia)[3]. Most arguments that I've heard for sexual freedom argue that consenting adults have the right to privacy, and will pick apart the Constitution and drag up obscure laws to prove it. My reasoning, although perhaps less legally valid, simply goes back to my basic rule about morality. Sex between consenting adults doesn't harm anybody (except sadism and masochism, but if all concerned are consenting they probably feel they are getting more benefit than harm from it). Furthermore, simply having a particular paraphilia cannot possibly harm anyone, much like the “naughty thoughts” I discussed earlier. I believe this statement extends to all paraphilias. This is the point where I seem to differ the most from the rest of society. Specifically, I do not believe that pedophilia itself is immoral. It should be noted, however, that I differentiate simple pedophilia from actual sexual abuse of children, which can cause great physical and emotional damage to the children involved, and which I do not intend to condone in any way, nor will I ever. However, I would go so far as to say that should a person be burdened with these urges, yet resists them because he knows it is wrong to molest a child (rather than simply because of fear of punishment), it would be a testament to his moral strength, rather than weakness. This is, of course, an unpopular opinion, but it makes logical sense. One cannot always control one's mind (for instance, people will often get an annoying song, such as William Hung's rendition of Ricky Martin's “She Bangs”, stuck in their heads), but one can usually control one's actions, and to hold people to a higher standard than this will cause a host of problems. The extent to which people will defy logic in an effort to justify their illogical morals is astounding in this regard. In my life, logic did not always rule my mind, and it still doesn't sometimes. I am only human, after all. At times, my transformation from gullible fool to logical thinker was difficult, even painful. However, I feel that my vastly improved ability to use reason has improved my life far more than it has damaged it, and I will hopefully never go back. Maybe you, the reader, will be able to benefit from this as well. Bibliography 1. J. Crowley, “---- Decent” EnterTheJabberwock.com July 24, 2006 http://www.enterthejabberwock.com/?p=351 (WARNING: Very coarse language) 2. Donovan Slack, “Thou art no Romeo” The Boston Globe August 12, 2005 Globe Newspaper Company http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/12/thou%5Fart%5Fno%5Fromeo/ 3. Donald MacLeod. “Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers” The Guardian March 8, 2005 Guardian Newspapers Limited http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html Edited to protect the innocent Edited to replace asterisks with "me". Thanks, Saunders. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:53: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 10:28
Profile
Homepage
Excellent work. Really, I agree with you %96 of the way. There's a couple of things I disagree on, such as the use of the N-word, but other then that, I'm with you all the way. That said, most religion is worthless nowadays, as beliefs are now changed on a mere whim. And just thinking something malicious is a sin?!?!? If that's the case, then everyone is condemned, including Jesus and Nazareth. Mind you, thoughts can modify how we behave without us even realizing it, but that in itself isn't evil. quote:Right now, I'm thinking that this board could really use an LOL Graemlin. And if it had one, I swear to you I'd use it right here. One proofreading note is that the use of brackets surrounding the article number seems somewhat awkward. Instead of (homosexuality)[2], you might try (homosexuality, 2). Just a thought. Oh, and you didn't hide your name fast enough. :P EDIT: I've invented a new word! ARCTICLE: An article that is both informative and cold. :D [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:37: Message edited by: Nioca ] -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 11:10
Profile
quote:May I ask why? quote:They bracketed numbers are supposed to be in superscript, but UBB doesn't allow superscript. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 11:19
Profile
Homepage
It, quite bluntly, is the sign of a shallow mind, and not because it's insulting. Using the word implies that you're basing an entire ethnic group on the behaviour of one person, or even worse, your own prejudice. -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 11:25
Profile
So fools do not have as much of a right to speak their minds as everyone else? Who decides who is a fool and who is not? -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 11:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:Then in that case, the C-word should be banned too. I think the words shouldn't have as much power as they do, and I really never use them, but they're just words. Anyway, the sincerity of the person who says them is what counts, and I think it's pretty easy to tell when someone's insulted you. Besides, if rappers can use both the N-word and the C-word, then why can't C-words? I also loved the divine brick parenthetical, and the William Hung reference was apt (though the phrasing was a little awkward, and I'm not sure how it could be smoothed out). Oh, Nioca? Nazareth isn't a person... unless you mean Nazareth, the Scottish rock band. (I love Wikipedia) And about the pedophilia part, I thought about disagreeing, but then I realized it was just because pretty much every case of it that the media covers is one of child abuse. While I find it hard to imagine (and unpleasant to think about) a case of pedophilia with fully consenting parties and a lack of abuse, I guess that variety would be acceptable. Thanks for getting me to really think about this response. But generally, good article. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 12:03
Profile
I suggest you use standard citation style to make things a little clearer. Perhaps the University of Massachusettes uses a different style, but I'm pretty sure the MLA would have you internally cite, for instance, the second source as (Slack). The bibliography itself should be alphabetized by the author's last name. quote:This is awkward and creates a break of flow and narrator character. I suggest specifically mentioning Crowley in the text of your essay. The "for your convenience" phrase also breaks character and I suggest smoothing it out. Again, I am not familiar with the style of The Watermark, but parenthetical information is usually meant to be terse and used sparingly. Some of the ones you use are little long. I can see you making a rational argument for the use of each, but the question to ask is whether they are all necessary. The divine brick joke, for instance, is fine for the tone of the essay, but the line "...a situation for which we are highly unlikely to find any evidence within our lifetimes anyway" is a little lengthy. quote:This could probably be taken out of parenthesis without losing any meaning. quote:Additionally, it seems a bit wordy. In the second paragraph, "and which set" could be changed to "and set." "thinking about going to bed with him or her" seems more natural in common usage than "thinking about bedding them." quote:I just wanted to point out a change in tone. It's fine otherwise. Regarding your arguments, I think they are logical enough for people to take them seriously. However, a university magazine might require more of you since I suspect they receive many essays like yours. Upon close and rhetorical scrutiny, your essay would need concrete arguments with clear premises. The emphasis of logic over arbitrarily assigned "divine" morals is clearly the focus in your essay, but I felt it denies any inherent goodness in people. Overall, I think it's a fine informal essay. You make it obvious that you just want to honestly and reasonably express your own opinion on this admittedly controversial subject. Since you make that clear, no critic or skeptic can do worse than disagree with you. Just keep that in mind in case the magazine does its worst. EDIT: quote:Fools have as much right as any other to speak their minds, but they can certainly be considered wrong. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:35: Message edited by: Garrison ] -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 12:05
Profile
Homepage
I rather think Nioca meant Jesus of Nazareth. At least, I assume so. As for the article... seems rather like a student conversation after a few drinks. Personal reflections; commonplace; of no particular interest to anyone else; that kind of thing. No offense, but if I were a publisher, I wouldn't print it. But I guess maybe the US magazine market is different, what would I know? Edit: Oops, N's name, plus correction to my own English. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:08: Message edited by: Archimandrite Micawber ] -------------------- "I can't read this thread with that image. But then, that's not a complaint." -Scorpius Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 12:28
Profile
quote:Perhaps it would be better written as "(for instance, people will often get an annoying song stuck in their heads, such as William Hung's rendition of Ricky Martin's "She Bangs")"? quote:I find it hard to imagine as well, because there probably is no such case. The point I was trying to make, rather, was that simply being attracted to children, and even such things as viewing lolicon hentai, neither of which involves actually engaging in sexual behavior with the child, harm nobody. Was the point unclear? [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:28: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 13:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:That's better... the sentence order was probably what threw me. quote:It was, a bit. It sounded like you were treating child abuse and pedophilia as separate entities. Either that, or I got confused and thought you meant the act of pedophilia instead of pedophilic thoughts. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 13:01
Profile
Homepage
The only thing I would like to point out (for now--I'm still pondering the article) is that, whether logical or not, some people find certain words offensive. Hearing those words would be harmful to those people in the sense that it makes them uncomfortable. So swearing shouldn't automatically be okay everywhere. There's a difference between swearing occasionally and swearing at least twice every sentence. There's a difference between swearing around your friends at home and swearing at a busy restaurant. (As I am a person who is bothered by profanity, I don't buy your argument that people "choose" to be offended. If I were at a restaurant and I could overhear the people at the next table swearing constantly, it would bother me. I might even develop a headache if it continued long enough. I can't change that.) Dikiyoba agrees with critically evaluating morals, though. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 13:22
Profile
quote:We do use MLA standards. I'll try and figure this out. quote:Perhaps if I moved the sentence in the parentheses to the end of the paragraph that currently follows it, it would be smoother? quote:I'll wait and see if anyone else agrees before changing this. I'm sure I could be a little more sparing with the parentheses, but I've never heard that the text contained within must be terse, and Wikipedia does not say that either. quote:I'm not really sure about how to word this, because there are two people involved, and if both are referred to as "he" at the same time, it's confusing. I do know that "they" should not be used here though, as well as in the part about the "attractive member of his preferred sex" part of the sentence. quote:That's how I had it originally, but I changed it because I wasn't sure if the sentence without "which" was ambiguous as to whether the event or I set the construction in motion. Is it? quote:Maybe just "sleeping with him or her" would be more concise, but point taken. quote:The italicized parts are intended to have a less formal, more personal tone to them anyway. I hope it works well. quote:The Watermark does not always require a formal, scholarly tone. It also contains short stories, poetry, and visual art. This will go in the Nonfiction section, assuming they accept it. I've read the essays in last semester's issue though, and the one that won the honor of Best Nonfiction was mostly a summary of Plato's The Protagoras. It didn't even begin analyzing it until the last couple paragraphs. quote:What do you mean? It's a philosophical essay. Statistics as to the prevalence of orthodox Catholocism would be irrelevant. quote:I think I'll leave it to Socrates and Protagoras to argue over whether there is inherent goodness in people. I will say, however, that the very concept of "inherent goodness" implies externally prescribed morality, which this essay argues against. I can see why it's unsettling, however. quote:It might not be right, but it's not necessarily wrong either. At any rate, if they don't express their anger and hatred, it's likely to simply build up inside. I assume we can all see where that may lead. Also, it immediately marks them as an idiot, which is a good thing, since it allows people to avoid wasting their time with them. Yours was a most helpful post. I thank you very much for taking the time to help me. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 13:26: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 13:26
Profile
quote:The purpose of those anecdotes is both to give the essay a more personal, comfortable tone to offset the hard, unsettling logic in the rest of the essay, and to provide examples of the occurance of the beliefs I argue against. Does it not work well? -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 13:32
Profile
quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Pedophilia is not an act, according to Wikipedia, but it is according to The American Heritage Dictionary. I was not aware that it was used to denote the act, but either way, I thought the following statement made it clear that I referred to the attraction and not the act. Should I elaborate a bit more on my use of the word in the defining statement? EDIT: For instance, maybe it would be better stated as "It should be noted, however, that when I say “pedophilia,” I refer strictly to attraction to minors. I differentiate this from actual sexual abuse of children, which can cause great physical and emotional damage to the children involved, and which I do not intend to condone in any way, nor will I ever."? [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 13:37: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 14:14
Profile
Omitting the "which" does not create any ambiguity. I get the italicized personal bits, so that's why I didn't point it out as an error. I know that inherent goodness undermines your position because it implies a set system of morals, but the notion that people only do good for a logical reason is more unsettling than that people should apply logic to morals. I edited my last comment about the fool, which I'll repeat here for your convenience. :) quote:Concerning what I said about concrete arguments, I should probably clarify and say that I don't think you need to do that and justify every little thing. If you had to, though, a premise I don't think you could escape from is one defining the role that human emotions play in morals. Otherwise, an opponent could force you to describe why harming another person is bad in purely logical terms, which I think would be nearly impossible. With this in mind you'd have to be careful because you'd really have to consider whether you'd want to support the position that all morals are completely subjective. EDIT: ...and you're very welcome. Your essay deserved constructive criticism. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 14:36: Message edited by: Garrison ] -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 14:27
Profile
Homepage
quote:I never said that, I never will say that, and I've never even thought that. Fools have as much right to free speech as anybody else. quote:I had a friend for a while that had no qualms about swearing. Not major swearing or prejudice, just your ordinary, everyday swear words. And when you're friends with someone like that, you learn to adjust very quickly. But otherwise, agreed. By the way, did you mean to triple-post? Because intentionally double-posting is against the Code of Conduct, so I'd imagine intentionally triple-posting would be too. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 14:28: Message edited by: Nioca ] -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 14:44
Profile
Garrison: The premise is not that harming people is bad, however. In fact, I specifically included a case where harming someone could be beneficial. Rather, the premise is that not harming anybody in any way is not bad, and I defy you to give a logical argument to the contrary. I also thought the concluding paragraph said, although not directly, that people don't always use logic, and shouldn't be expected to. Should I make it more direct? Nioca: In fact, you did say it, although not in those exact words. When I asked why you thought it was wrong, you said quote:I would say that only a fool would have such a shallow mind as to base his statements about an entire ethnic group on the behavior of one person or his own prejudice. It's also worth noting that some people use the "N-word" not to mean every black person, but only the ignorant, racist ones. Whether that is a valid definition of the word is an argument for those that use it. Also, it's been established that you can make multiple posts to respond to multiple posts. We have a whole system, you see. :P EDIT: About swearing: If everyone swore all the time without anyone being offended, the words would lose their power. Eventually, the entire notion of a word being offensive for no reason would fade away, and it would no longer harm anyone. This has the added benefit that people would be forced to use words with actual meaning to describe things. Instead of "He's so F-wording huge," they'd have to say "He's so huge that it's astounding that the planets don't revolve around him." More descriptive, right? EDIT 2: Maybe I should put that in the essay. Hmm... [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 14:50: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 15:04
Profile
Homepage
I meant that even fools have the right of free speech. When it comes down to it, aren't we all fools? -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 15:38
Profile
Homepage
Definitely thought-provoking, ADoS. Hmm. Comprehensive feedback: This seems more about ethics and approach to life than moral principles (though you do include said principles), and that is frankly the only weakness I can find. You may merely wish to change your title. And if you think that that's MLA... you'd best be doing a bit more research on your form, my friend. Now then... a nice ramble in response to your content: The only hole I can find in your philosophy is the unfortunate fact that it is impossible to not offend at least someone. It would make sense, however, if you were a bit unexpressively utilitarian in that regard, so I'm not going to press the issue. I myself find it amusing, if not disturbing, how the modern concensus of principles of morality and/or ethicality are derived not from religion or good of the majority, but from outdated and expired social contracts stemming from the misunderstanding of religion, corruption of man's egocentrism, and a skewed view of the good of the majority. And I agree with you that "nature" is a poor reference for morality, in that nature is full of natural aberritions, and is constantly changing anyway. And to add to that, my theology dictates my belief that nature is corrupted, to boot. I'm sure that you don't agree, but I felt it a good idea to throw my rationale out there. I find CCD a good example of the perversion of principles: those in charge are so consumed by a schedule of indoctrination before confirmation that they do not teach their students the implications of the doctrine that they are learning (speaking from experience related to me by Catholic friends. I am a non-lutheran protestant who has never taken any form of confirmation class), leaving the students to draw their own conclusions. Your reference to "naughty thoughts" is an exceptionally good example of religious principles taken out of concept by the religion that follows them. Yes, Christ did indeed say that looking on a woman lustfully is sin. In context, he was telling off a group of religious leaders for divorcing their wives so that they could marry younger women. The sin here is not thinking naughtily, the sin(s) is(/are) being unfaithful, and desiring that which isn't yours. These are merely done though "naughty thoughts". Naughty thoughts are not necessarily a problem: a married man who doesn't have any about his wife is probably in a very poor relationship. But instead of differentiating between the sin and the act that causes it, the powers-that-be lump it into one taboo act and expect you to draw your own implications from that. In your case, ADoS, you concluded that the only way to avoid hell would be five years making up for all past offenses. Change of topics: "offensive" language. I think Dikiyoba has the best response to this: there are some words and concepts that are automatically offensive due to the social context in which they are used. A person cannot necessarily chose what they are offended by. A person can chose the principles that influence what offends them (such as the valuing of God's "name" being a significantly higher priority over the personal offense of some random listener), and perhaps, a person can choose to not be offended. But it appears quite obvious that the partiality displayed on the radio offended you. Did you choose for it to offend you, or did you not immediately and instinctively react? And I must also agree with Diki that there is an extreme difference between using strong language for emphasis and the casual "f--- that f---ing f---er for f---ing that f---ing s--- up". Some people will be offended by my example, despite its being censored. Do they choose to be offended because the nature of the message is crude? The easiest way to get someone's attention is to offend them. Does it make it right? Only if your priority is attention. Okay, summary of ramble: ADoS, you wrote a good paper on your personal ethics and approach to life. Some may argue with you, but they are your ethics, meaning that only you can decide on the principles that shape them. I agree with you that modern society is drawing its principles from the wrong place, but I do not agree with you on what the right place is. I furthermore disagree that people do not choose to be offended, but that they chose that which makes them suseptable (sp?) to offense. Logic, the good of mankind, and not hurting anyone are admirable and ideal goals, but make poor values due to the fact that all three are highly subjective. But it was definitely a good, thought-provoking paper. End of ramble. I hope it gets published. It's worth it. EDIT: I seriously need to pay more attention to the preface sometimes... -------------------- The Silent Assassin would like it known that granny smith apples make for good explosives. Beware of flying fruit. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 16:02: Message edited by: Lenar, Inc. ] -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 15:41
Profile
Homepage
Originally by the Almighty Do-er of Stuff: quote:I can't realistically see everyone suddenly being no longer offended or bothered by swearing. The "no harm done" principle applies to society as it exists, not as it should exist. (Because if it did, you wouldn't have had any incentive to write this article, now would you?) quote:Someone happily told Dikiyoba that "the f-word is the most versatile word in the English language," so Dikiyoba fears it will work the other way around. Once swearing becomes firmly established, those descriptive phrases will become less common. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 16:02
Profile
Unfortunately, the censorship of certain words leads not to more descriptive phrasing, but rather to words like "gosh darned" and "freaking". I do see your point, however. I will adjust the paragraph between the anecdote and the summary thusly, and then post it to recieve criticism and suggestions. EDIT: Here are the edited paragraphs: "My mother was driving me home from an appointment one evening. She had the radio on, as she always does when she drives, although she was not really listening to it. It was some sort of commentary segment between songs. The caller said something about the problems caused by the “---damn Islamic terrorists,” and the host agreed with him. They discussed terrorism for a while, then began to discuss Islam itself, one of them calling it a violent and hateful religion. The other agreed. As they moved on to the subject of the upcoming election, I thought briefly about how odd it was that they were forbidden to take the Christian god's generic nickname in vain, yet were able to freely call Islam, practiced by a very large portion of the world's population, “violent and hateful.” I chalked it up as yet another example of one group's illogical morals being thrust upon others. The general population's staunch opposition to “swearing” in publicly accessible places and on publicly accessible broadcasts is fairly surprising, when you consider that most of us swear occasionally ourselves, some of us quite often. Some people even swear incessantly in front of their children. I find censorship to be a strange way to discourage it, given the fact that there are countless alternatives with the exact same meaning, which are discouraged far less often. There are some common arguments against censorship of specific words to the exclusion of other similar words and phrases. Although I can't take full credit for them, I will briefly summarize the arguments here for your convenience. The “S-word” (begrudgingly censored here for the sake of the faint of heart) and the word “poopies” have the exactly the same meaning, yet one is censored and one is not. One could argue that the former has a negative connotation and the latter does not, therefore the former should be censored. However, the words “rancid” and “fetid” also have negative connotations. Therefore, logically, either “rancid” and “fetid” should be censored or no words should be censored for having a negative connotation. One could also argue that words like the “B-word” and the “N-word” should be censored because their use is mainly to insult others. However, the phrase “slow-witted, pig-headed Neanderthal” is also insulting, yet is not censored. Therefore, either the aforementioned phrase should be censored or no words should be censored for being insulting. (The website where I read an argument to this effect which particularly affected my thoughts on this subject is listed in the bibliography, entry 1.)" I'm afraid that the section no longer fits with the theme of the paper, however. Ugh... EDIT 2: Actually, I don't really agree with this. Just as a person can restrain his or her anger (and is in fact legally required to do so to some extent, as evidenced by the fact that "He called me a B-word and spit in my face" is not a valid legal defense for murder), so can a person stop being offended by words. The methods for not becoming angry are widely known and exactly the same as that for not becoming offended (and in fact offense is simply a form of anger). The person makes a choice not to follow through with stopping his susceptibility to being offended. Even in those cases where a person is so offended that instinct takes over immediately, social conservatives are often offended by socially liberal statements, and vice versa. However, neither socially conservative nor socially liberal statements are censored, at least not in places where people claim to be independent thinkers, such as America. (This obviously doesn't apply in theocracies and dictatorships, where all bets are off in regards to logic.) This fits with the theme of analyzing the logical inconsistancies of society. I may be becoming incoherent now. I will be going to bed soon, and may read this thread again tomorrow. I do have a lot of work to do that I wanted to start today, however, so I probably won't be reading it as actively. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 16:41: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 16:49
Profile
Homepage
I haven't read the whole article, but just a couple of quick points: quote:I should point out here that the fact that everyone does something does not automatically make it right. In fact, it's a vitally important part of Christian doctrine that "We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". So that alone does not necessarily make it an illogical concept. Further, in regard to "praying for forgiveness every time you do so", it isn't actually necessary to ask for forgiveness for every single sin individually. Even in Catholic theology, in confession, it's quite acceptable to repent for sins that have slipped your mind right at the moment. For those of a less legalistic theology, "forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us" would cover the whole lot quite nicely. :) Of course, this doesn't have much bearing on your main point (that such thoughts don't harm anyone else and therefore should not be considered "wrong"), and I'm not seeking to challenge that and I'm not wanting to start a debate. It just seems to me that you have a bit of a misunderstanding of what Christianity is all about, and I think that if you want to present a logically sound case you do need to properly understand the other side. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 17:01
Profile
While the church is consistant in this regard, it does not stand up to the logic in the paragraphs that follow, which you did not read. At any rate, the teacher did say we needed to pray for forgiveness every time we think "naughty thoughts." EDIT: By extension of the logic I posted in my previous post, if you are offended by someone else swearing, the other person is not harming you, but you are harming yourself. For instance, when Galileo Galilei defended the heliocentric model of the solar system, many people were certainly offended, to the extent that they were going to excommunicate and imprison him; however, does this mean that Galileo was wrong? EDIT 2: At any rate, Ash, what is it that makes thinking "naughty thoughts" wrong? EDIT 3: Looking at my essay again, I realize that there is really is nothing there that specifically addresses why the church's stand is illogical. Will fix. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 17:34: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 17:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, I've read them now. But like I said before, it was not those paragraphs that I sought to challenge. It simply seems to me that the points you raised in that first example are not logically valid ones (even if one teacher did say something stupid) - nor does it seem that they are necessary to the essay as a whole. EDIT: quote:Note that I'm not actually arguing that they are wrong, at least not here. I'm simply saying those particular arguments seem ill-founded. I'm quite tempted to answer your question properly, but I'm scared of a big argument. So I'll refrain for now. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 17:41: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, October 14 2006 17:41
Profile
EDIT: I didn't realize this post went through. I changed it in response to Ash's edit. It is on the next page. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 17:54: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |