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 17:47
Profile
New intro: "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 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. 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. Many religions will claim that these thoughts are wrong because they are “impure,” but they never actually give a straight answer as to what “impure” means. Even if “impure” really has any meaning in this context, 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 sleeping with 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. I walked out that day and never looked back." The logical argument against the idea that naughty thoughts are wrong is that it doesn't hurt anyone. The Abrahamic religions seem to imply that the reason is that it offends God. However, I later argue that a person chooses to be offended (not in the original essay, but in my later post), so my logic seems to be consistent. Also, new title: No Harm Done: The Logic of Morality A personal essay by (me) EDIT: I'm not sure I like the way the second paragraph is organized though. Is it too much arguing in the personal anecdote section? [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 17:51: 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 18:06
Profile
Homepage
quote:Again, "everyone does it" doesn't decide whether something is right or wrong, and no one actually believes that you'll need to pray for five years to catch up on your confessing, so that's a strawman. I think that by including these points you hurt the credibility of the rest of the essay. I also disagree with the logic you ascribe to the Church, but for all I know that actually is what the Catholics believe. :P But I would like to discuss this point properly, by PM so we don't have 2 dozen people weighing in and so we don't completely derail the thread. Willing? -------------------- 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 18:08
Profile
Sure. I'll IM you. If you don't want to do this via IM, say so when I IM you. -------------------- 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 18:34
Profile
quote:Then what is "bad"? That is something you'd have to state because of the extremely subjective matter of your essay. But like I said, that's not really the point. In fact, I didn't even want to give an example in the first place because some weird argument like this would happen. Your philosophy as written right now might be construed to promote a utilitarian and overly nihilistic view of morals. I don't think anything you said explicitly supports the latter, but examples like swearing in public and people choosing to be offended make it seem as if you care not at all for the polite feelings of others. You can easily defend private sexual acts because it logically hurts no one, but why isn't there consideration for people who are offended by something you are not offended by? Anyway, the choosing not to be offended argument is probably the most tenuous one in the essay. It implies that all of our emotions are completely under our control, and sometimes that just isn't true. Brawling in the streets or having sex in public doesn't really hurt you, but should you really allow it? To do so would make everything into a Jerry Springer show where people rarely get seriously hurt but are extremely insulted nonetheless (I know it's not all real but it's just an analogy). If I understand your argument correctly, you'd say that such examples are extremes and that your philosophy would only say that brawls and sexual acts held in private shouldn't offend anyone. But nonetheless a critic would take that captious position. EDIT: As a final clarification on concrete arguments, I'd like to point out a few things. Remember that I'm not saying you need to do incorporate them, though. On what do you base morals? Clearly not on God, but is it in the general good of society as you briefly mentioned? You need to state that more explicitly. Also, is it a part of your argument that people can change their emotions at will? You also need to address how far you'd be willing to let current morals change as per your philosophy. As a proponent of rational morals, you'd probably argue that any crazy extreme would be illogical, but your essay should still formally give an example by which to judge your beliefs on the subject. Furthermore, should that limit be based on consensus? Really, the whole swearing thing along with choosing to be offended seems stretched thin. But I reiterate, this is your opinion and its basis has no gaping holes, though some specifics have been contested by others on the board. I just warn you not to make wild arguments in this thread to defend yourself because it'll seem to make you seem desperate to find justification. [ Saturday, October 14, 2006 18:59: 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 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 02:20
Profile
I have no interest in defending whatever particular doctrines you were taught. To me CCD is a camera technology. But I think your basic theory of morality is missing some important points. One is that on little matters like swearing, the preferences of the many can outweigh the freedom of the one, no matter how irrational these preferences may be. If everyone in some village hates yellow, it's obnoxious for a stranger to go around waving yellow flags in their faces, no matter how innocent yellow may be in absolute terms. Obviously there are limits to this principle, but it seems to me that it does have some weight, which you neglect. More importantly, a lot of traditional morality that deals with minor but common issues is based on a 'broken windows' theory. (This is the theory of community policing, which says that arresting vandals prevents drive-by shootings, and for which there seems to be some evidence.) In the Christian case this goes back to Jesus's frequent statement that 'the one who is faithful in little things will be faithful in big things'. Letting little things slip by fosters a mental climate, in one's own conscience if nowhere else, in which bigger and bigger things become easier and easier. So you need to use the little things to build your own integrity. Immanuel Kant (I believe) called obligations like this 'imperatives of skill'. It's not that the thing itself is important, but that its training effect on the individual is necessary for achieving important things. Again, this is a principle whose implications must be balanced reasonably against those of other principles, but I think it's a principle that needs to be included in any serious morality. It's not enough to have the good intention of doing no harm. You have to work on developing and maintaining the character that you'll need, in case you ever have to live up to that intention under intense pressure. That having been said, it certainly seems to me that obsession with minor sins can have as big a bad training effect, in the way of misery and confusion, as any good effect it may have. There is definitely a place for Martin Luther's notorious advice to 'sin boldly'. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 05:32
Profile
quote:But who decides where the limits are? Many Americans prefer that homosexuals not get married or even publicly display their affection for their partners. Many Muslims prefer that women stay in a subordinate role to men. Prior to the American civil rights movement (and even after it), many whites preferred that blacks be segregated from whites. Do the preferences of the majority outweigh those of the few here? I understand that these are extreme examples, but the first question stands. Who decides where the limits are? My arguments are getting specious, I agree. Maybe I should come up with something else less ambiguous to argue in the second section. I need to come up with it by Tuesday, though. Ugh... EDIT: I thought of an adjustment: Make the premise of the essay be that morals make logical sense, rather than just specifically that if it harms nobody then there is not logical argument as to what makes it unethical. This allows me to argue that people should be consistent in what they choose to censor, rather than that nothing should be censored. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 05:49: 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 Sunday, October 15 2006 06:38
Profile
Homepage
Careful, Stuff Do-er. With all of these changes you're making to your article, it would be easy to lose the original point. Let the opinions of others sway you, but don't let them topple you over. Just a thought. -------------------- 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 Sunday, October 15 2006 07:51
Profile
quote:Putting aside that this is a slippery slope fallacy, it is just a good an argument, if not better, for controlling one's anger as it is for not swearing. If a man cannot even keep himself from becoming angry at meaningless words, how can he control himself when something really maddening comes along? Frankly, if the village hates yellow and you like yellow, I think you should feel free to wear yellow. They need to get over it. At any rate, if they really must not have anything yellow in their village, it had better at least be easy to live somewhere else. That's not always the case, however, such as when the majority prefers that people follow a certain religion, but that religion also says you can't leave the religion and economic hardship, government mandate, etc. prevents you from leaving the area. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 07:55: 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 Sunday, October 15 2006 08:25
Profile
I agree with Nioca's post. Anyway, I doubt you could deny that there is some implicit base from which these logical morals stem, since without them how could one decide how "logical" a moral is? Unlike with some math puzzle, people's logic could differ vastly on a matter like this. To me the essay provided the following basic ideas: 1. A purely religious reason is not a logical basis for a moral. 2. There is never anything wrong with mere thoughts if they are never acted upon. 3. Private actions between consenting people logically harm no one and therefore are not immorally wrong. 4. An argument concerning general aversion to something does not carry as much weight as a rational argument about absolute harm. 5. The notion of equal rights, natural rights, and overall tolerance underly your philosophy. Stick to these ideas steadfastly without going off on wild tangents. I'll let others continue to debate your swearing paragraphs, though. -------------------- 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 Sunday, October 15 2006 09:16
Profile
Homepage
Speaking of which, I thought up a new name for this topic. Plenty of Harm Done: How the People of the Spiderweb Forums Will Mercilessly Butcher Your Article to the Point that You Won't Even Want to Release It to the Public. :P I'm so clever. :D -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 09:31
Profile
Homepage
Asking for logic from religion misses the point. Religion doesn't have to be reasonable. You can choose not to follow it or you can choose to accept the things that don't make sense to your rational mind. ADoS, your counterexamples to SoT's yellow argument are on a completely different scale. Profanity (or wearing/waving the color yellow) is not going to make a huge difference in a life the way the right to marriage or legal inferiority can. What you have is a conflict of preferences. If I want to curse and everyone else does not want me to curse, I am not in fact prevented from expressing anything. Questions of practical ethics and morality rarely have pat answers to all possible questions. I think the limit has to be wherever people get the most freedom with the least offense. Good luck finding that point. People who dislike profanity may or may not get anger, but the anger is the result of distaste and not vice versa. It's just as easy to say that the one using the profanity should get over it and find a more polite means of expression just like someone can get over wanting to wear yellow. Why is it more logical for one person to have the right to offend many than for many to minimally restrict the one to acceptable behavior? —Alorael, who from a communicative point of view laments the overuse of profanity. If it's supposed to convey strong emotion, usually anger, outrage, or something of the sort, how are those going to be expressed when everyone is spouting @#%$ at the slightest provocation? Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 10:34
Profile
I agree that religion doesn't have to be reasonable. What gets me is when people claim that it is reasonable, and make it a factor in the creation of public policy. Latest form of the essay: ------- No Harm Done – The Logic of Morality A personal 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 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. 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. Many religions will claim that these thoughts are wrong because they are “impure,” but they never actually say what “impure” means. Even if “impure” really has any meaning in this context, 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 sleeping with that person, or wishing he could punch someone who was apparently in such a hurry that the jerk 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 five years just to make up for adolescence. 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 random 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, which is why most religions and most advanced societies have rules against them, and those that don't either stagnate or collapse. 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 probably be right in giving him a time-out, even though the child would feel emotional pain, ephemeral as it may be. (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 “probably.” This is the basis for a large part of my system of beliefs, but I digress.) However, I have yet to hear a logical argument in favor of punishing any sort of completely harmless behavior. 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.” I find that I am at odds with what it is clearly a large enough part of society as to require regulation by the Federal Communications Commission, in that I don't believe swearing is wrong, in most cases. 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 quite a strange way to discourage it, 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, 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.) There are really only two situations in which swearing can hurt anyone. The first is when it is used as an insult, which I have already argued is not a good reason to censor specific words to the exclusion of others with similar meanings and contexts. The other situation is when the person who hears it chooses to be offended by it. A person can control his anger, and is legally required to do so in many cases, as evidenced by the fact that “He called me a [B-word] and spit in my face!” is not a valid legal defense for committing a crime. In fact, those who remain calm in trying situations are held up as role models. The methods for not being offended are the same as those for not becoming angry, since offense at its heart is really just a form of anger, and these methods are well known by most of the population. It is therefore the person who knows that it takes only a little discipline to stop becoming offended by this language yet chooses not to do so, rather than the person who is swearing, who is causing harm. This logic implies that government and social effort would be better spent on programs that educate people about anger control than on censorship. 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 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. 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. It still doesn't sometimes, and it would be unreasonable to expect people to use logic at all times. We are 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 -------- Further proofreading would be greatly appreciated. As for the MLA citation standards, I'm pretty sure my sources are cited pretty clearly, even if it doesn't strictly follow the MLA standards. Wikipedia uses this form of citation and does not face legal action as a result, anyway, so it seems valid enough to me. EDIT: Added line breaks in final paragraphs. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:26: 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 # 7420
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 10:54
Profile
Homepage
I completely agree with the main points in your essay. I like that you back your ideas with logic and even with personal experiences rather than preconceived notions. The one problem I have is that you deal mostly with separate examples, rather than tying your entire argument together at some point. Maybe you just don’t have one, but if you do, I am curious as to what your overall ‘rule’ is regarding morals. You make it clear that you don’t agree that going with ‘nature’ is always right. The closest you come to having such a ‘rule’ is probably when you say offending people is bad, but then you say that offending people can mean too many different things for that ever to be conceivable. I’ll give you my own outlook on morals because it’s what I do. Tell me what you think. Here is the single biggest problem with today's moral system: it is designed to protect the weak. It goes against nature to protect the weak, with one exception. Other than that one exception, the weak should be allowed to suffer. Honestly, how weak of mind and soul does someone have to be in order to be offended by a word to the point of being 'damaged?' These people are a burden on the species and should not be allowed to reproduce let alone get their way by censoring the strong. Such rules only weaken the strong, and we strong like profanity, it is a great way to add emphasis when you’re trying to make a ****ing point. The same goes for pornography. No one is shoving it down your throat, just show some damn fortitude you weaklings, and look the other way when confronted with it. Why try to deprive others that might benefit? The one exception to this rule is children. Children are the most valuable natural resource known to man, and should be protected at all costs. Profanity should not hurt them to begin with, since they should not have preconceived notions about the words, the same goes for pornography, which is (in most cases) perfectly natural. As for the unnatural stuff, well, the child should be allowed to make the decision as to whether or not they enjoy it, rather than being told it is wrong outright. However, when it comes to physical acts, that is where even I must draw a line. Children are not mature enough to make decisions regarding their bodies. Though I would draw the line probably a little younger than 18, I agree with most laws regarding sex and minors that exist today. But for everyone else, morals are useful only for protecting the weak. This is an ideal that society has gotten backwards. Why hinder yourself for the benefit of those that are already a burden on society? I’m not saying this in regard to all things, mind you. I believe in ‘an eye for an eye.’ Murder must be repaid with death, assault with torture, and theft with fines. These are all acts which are easily defined and punished. However, when it comes to profanity, religion, sexual preferences, thoughts or what-have-you, these things simple can not be punished, as punishing them would only do unnecessary damage to the offender. Those that are offended by these things don’t have to be offended, they choose to be. That is unacceptable to me, and it should be for all of us if we hope to move forward as a species. Edit: I won’t comment on any grammatical errors because I believe this is also an instrument of the weak. Grammar standards only exist so that writings can be understandable to everyone. But really, only the weak really need to adhere to these standards. The strong, when allowed to move beyond them, can create and read things like poetry. I would rather see poetry than a bland essay, even if it does make your idea more understandable to the weak. But really, should the weak be reading this? [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:11: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 11:11
Profile
Homepage
The essay looks good to me. The only thing I think it needs is to make everything after "...and to hold people to a higher standard than this will cause a host of problems." a new (and concluding) paragraph. ----- Originally by the Almighty Do-er of Stuff: quote:We all decide where the limits are. We do it as individuals, in various groups, and as a society. There's no one standard, which is why there are so many debates over where the limit is and whether an incident or behavior is acceptable or not. And I think that in cases where the majority and the minority are in conflict, and it's impossible to ignore or work around the differences, then the preferences of the majority should outweigh the preferences of the few. However, the few have the right to try and change the majority's opinions. It's way more complicated than that, and other factors come into play, but it's a starting point. ----- quote:Have you ever mentioned this before this topic? It sounds really familiar, and Dikiyoba is trying to decide whether Dikiyoba heard it from you or from someone else. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 11:27
Profile
quote:My overall rule is, as I stated in the essay, that morals should make logical sense, and more specifically, that morals stating that completely harmless things are wrong make no sense. As for nature and offense, you seem to have it somewhat backwards. While I don't think going with nature is always right (i.e. rape, which is perfectly natural, yet goes against my morals for the reasons I stated in the essay), I was actually arguing that the vague, inconsistent notion of "naturalness" is a bad qualifier for morality, not that nature is bad. Also, I argued that offense as a reaction to some words to the exclusion of their synonyms is the fault of the offended, not that it's "bad" to offend people. quote:Um... I'm not really sure whether you're being sarcastic or truthful here. If you're being sarcastic, it's a bit of a strawman (I think I fixed my own strawman a bit in the revised essay, by the way. Tell me what you think.), and you alternately support and contradict my position throughout. If you're serious, then I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you're daft. -------------------- 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 Sunday, October 15 2006 11:33
Profile
quote:Like this? "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 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. 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. Granted, in my life, logic did not always rule my mind. It still doesn't sometimes, and it would be unreasonable to expect people to use logic at all times. We are only human, after all. Nevertheless, I feel we as a society should strive to use logic more than we currently do, and try not to force the illogical upon others. 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." quote:Probably someone else. I didn't make it up. It's a fairly widespread joke. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:38: 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 Sunday, October 15 2006 12:05
Profile
As a short post in the myriad of many prolix ones, I must ask since when Wikipedia became the authoritative source on everything? Their citation style uses standard footnotes and their policy is to use the style that is appropriate for the subject in question. Do either internal citation or footnotes, not both. -------------------- 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 # 73
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 12:23
Profile
I only used footnote citation, didn't I? Unless you mean the explanatory comment about Crowley's article. Is that out of line? My English professor didn't say anything about it when she proofread my paper. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:27: 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 # 335
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 12:27
Profile
Homepage
quote:The problem is that you can't get a value judgment from strict logic. Somewhere you need to introduce a premise of value, and that's something that people can and will disagree about. You can demand internally consistent morals, but you can't demand objective morals. I'm still not convinced by any of the arguments against, say, profanity. When there's really no harm being done either by allowing or preventing profanity, why does allowing win? Tullegolar is still working with the assumption that people are harmed by profanity. I think most people who are offended wouldn't claim that they are "damaged" by language. They just would rather not hear it. It's also considered not nice to scratch a chalkboard in front of people constantly for much the same reasons. Again, why does the ability to be rude trump the desire of the majority not to have to deal with rudeness? Actually, Tullegolar, you seem to believe that proper morality should be in a Hobbesian state of nature. The problem is that we do have societies, and they exist to prevent that. If most people prefer to avoid profanity, they are collectively the strong and the ones who would like to curse are weak. They don't have the right to do it because they don't have the strength to do it and get away with it. Grammar has the same problem. Once there's more collective strength on the side of freedom, it becomes permissible. But "might makes right" isn't morality, it's practicality. —Alorael, who is feeling slow and incoherent today. Maybe he'll be able to make sense later. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 12:33
Profile
I'd say allowing wins because the reason for allowing is logical, while the reason for not allowing is irrational. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:36: 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 # 335
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 12:45
Profile
Homepage
No, see, there's where I don't follow you. You are no more harmed by not being able to curse than they are by having to listen to you curse. —Alorael, who thinks it comes down to moderate distaste and inconvenience. The inconvenience of the minority loses out. That's rational. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 12:49
Profile
Homepage
Originally by the Almighty Do-er of Stuff: quote:Yes, thank you. quote:You obviously don't read the Geneforge forum, ADoS, otherwise you would have been expecting that. Emperor Tullegolar: Haven't you heard the fable about the lion and the mouse? Edit: Apparently, UBB is offended by Dikiyoba's link and refuses to show it correctly. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 13:36: Message edited by: Dikiyoba ] Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 13:34
Profile
"(homosexual necrophilia)[2]" or whatever doesn't conform to anything I've ever seen. "homosexual necrophilia" is not the proper way to refer to any one of your sources, and then there is a footnote after it. Maybe you updated this is yet another redraft, but I didn't see a change. I guess my main point is that the superscript (hopefully without the brackets upon final submission) will suffice by itself. Alorael, do you think that the language of his essay promotes a nihilistic view of morals, or merely one that emphasizes logic applied to an implicit set (which is determined by an unstated method)? EDIT: This is probably silly, but ADoS, are you writing for a high school English teacher or a college one? I can't guess with confidence, even with your profile. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 13:42: 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 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 14:13
Profile
Homepage
ADoS is giving the terms for his examples and then a footnote for the source. Now that I look at them, I think that needs to be changed. Either work the terms into a complete sentence or cut them out. (For instance, by replacing 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], with Even if unnatural things were necessarily wrong, there is considerable evidence that these “deviancies” like homosexuality are, in fact, natural, such as the highly publicized case of the lesbian swans in the Boston Public Garden[2], or something similar.) Otherwise, it sounds awkward. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 14:48
Profile
Homepage
I object to the misapplication of logic and the idea that rational morality can only be predicated on harm. The whole religious argument at the beginning holds no water. God doesn't need to make rules that are fair or sensible. If you're culpable for your thoughts, you deal with it or suffer divine punishment. Not liking it doesn't make it less true. You can stop believing or you can believe something else, but you can't rationally reject the tenets of faith. The rest just seems like a gross simplification. A great deal of right and wrong is less flashy than murder and paraphilia. Is politeness a useless social construct? I would say not, but one can argue otherwise. Nobody really has but Tullegolar, and his morals make random acts of violence perfectly acceptable. —Alorael, who thinks ADoS's views are interesting and perfectly valid. The justification is the problem. Throwing around words like logic and rationality is in fact an emotional appeal. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |