On Topic Discussion Realists and conversationalists: Last of a dying breed?

[Kabluey]

^ morality only gets a dirty name when the term is co-opted by people with puritan agendas. That is, people try to stretch the definition of moral to include rules, not just values.

 

[peeonme]

No "dumbing down"? Evolving? More like devolving. I'll give you 2 examples:

Ok, I love arm pits. I had to say it, I am a realist.
I see your point about conversationalists, it seems that many people have lost touch with the need to verbally communicate, all I see all day is people with thumbs busy texting, these same folks can't say good morning at work, seems like they are in a trance.
I have one friend that I shoot the breeze with before work, he is an old fart like me.

 

[c0nfused]

What interests me in this thread and more generally is the subject of morality.

It's irking pretty much every one when we interpret Dragononfire's op as him thinking he has moral superiority. The usual, modern, currant is to rebuke that, to tell that everyone is equal, that morality can be subjective.
I'm not entirely convinced.

I stand by some fundamental morals, like 'don't kill a human, for any reason, whatever the circumstances'. I stand by 'equality between women's rights and men's'. Some people, in some countries, may differ. They are so strong in me (the INFP talking ) than it makes me consider that they are superior. I'm convinced humankind would be better with them enforced everywhere.

Am I wrong to consider I am right ?

I'm afraid politically correctness towards morality may muddle things too much. All is not morally equivalent in my book.
But it's just my opinion

Did you read my meaning of life thread. Before it was closed, I made some good points on the topic. Nothing is moral or immoral; nothing is inherently right or wrong. There is nothing indicating that we ought to do any particular thing over another in any non-instrumental/non-conditional sense of the word ought. You mention killing humans as being a fundamental moral, yet I'm sure you would do it in the right situation. There was a time when killing was widely accepted as entertainment. Apart from that, It ultimately makes no difference anyway. There is no good or evil, again they are constructs of the human mind. I'm not saying people should act in a way to oppose morality, but I deny the obligation to follow them. I don't go around stealing, killing, etc because humanity says it's 'wrong'. I don't do it because I have no interest in doing such pointless things.

 

[blackbeltninja]

^Ah, but would you if you didn't find them "pointless"?

Like would you steal to feed yourself if you were starving? Or would you steal because you weren't earning enough money working, however you decide to define enough?

-d-

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

methinks is got it

realists a wares earsplugs ans go surf bit a sea cause lot a toons keeps ons conversations there farts neva endin dat why end titiatic movie da dude go fuck this script haaaaaaaaaaa
* twitatwitatwita *
$ oooh a signals frosm outs a space!!!!!!! $

hhaa

wot a world leadurs conversations? da costs a peanuts ons plane?

thankouy

any folk read this post eat peanuts ons plane is check theys no grows out laboratorys were norks picks a nose

 

[oakpope]

'Nothing is moral or immoral; nothing is inherently right or wrong.'

I beg to differ.

'You mention killing humans as being a fundamental moral, yet I'm sure you would do it in the right situation.'

No, even if my mother was threatened, I would not kill. Even to save myself, I would not kill. It's surely one of my most profound value.

That in history, killing others was easier is irrelevant. Again it comes from dehumanizing and belittling. Romans and Greeks viewed non Romans and Greeks as barbarians, not really human. Slaves were property, not human beings.

That morality is a human construct, certainly, even if not based in vacuum, as animals have moral behaviors too. But it's delusional to think we can exist without.

 

[rareboy]

^ Meh.

I'd bash the brains out of anyone who threatened mine. I'm enough of a primitive to recognize the atavistic urge to protect my family and anyone under my protection.

 

[oakpope]

^I totally understand that. I push the envelope quite here. It's my own morality, and I don't think it's evil to protect oneself or one's family. But I would try and protect without killing. I'd rather die than to kill. But in a jury, given proper circumstances, I would not condemn a man too harshly for it (again under circumstances).

But I stand, for example, that death penalty is barbaric.

 

[c0nfused]

^Ah, but would you if you didn't find them "pointless"?

Like would you steal to feed yourself if you were starving? Or would you steal because you weren't earning enough money working, however you decide to define enough?

-d-

Good question. You know from my previous posts that I believe life has no intrinsic meaning at all. Stealing food to survive would imply that I think it's worth living instead of dying of hunger. Ultimately there is no benefit to either option. To answer your question, no I would not steal. And anyway if my life was that bad, that I couldn't afford food I would definitely have no interest in living.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

^ Meh.

I'd bash the brains out of anyone who threatened mine. I'm enough of a primitive to recognize the atavistic urge to protect my family and anyone under my protection.

so usa ans uk ans tail of lands attack folk a iraq cause nothins gurds ons tv iraqs a folk cans happy same ? ans let see list
* long list goins back ans forward ans back ans forward ans dance ins circulls oor free style *
coor


thankyou

 

[blackbeltninja]

Good question. You know from my previous posts that I believe life has no intrinsic meaning at all. Stealing food to survive would imply that I think it's worth living instead of dying of hunger. Ultimately there is no benefit to either option. To answer your question, no I would not steal. And anyway if my life was that bad, that I couldn't afford food I would definitely have no interest in living.

Okay.

Forget survival. Would you steal money to buy something that you couldn't afford but didn't need? Or steal something simply because you just wanted it?

-d-

 

[c0nfused]

'Nothing is moral or immoral; nothing is inherently right or wrong.'

I beg to differ.

'You mention killing humans as being a fundamental moral, yet I'm sure you would do it in the right situation.'

No, even if my mother was threatened, I would not kill. Even to save myself, I would not kill. It's surely one of my most profound value.

That in history, killing others was easier is irrelevant. Again it comes from dehumanizing and belittling. Romans and Greeks viewed non Romans and Greeks as barbarians, not really human. Slaves were property, not human beings.

That morality is a human construct, certainly, even if not based in vacuum, as animals have moral behaviors too. But it's delusional to think we can exist without.

As a society, you are right we cannot exist without morals. But thats why they were created. In order to build a functional society. Animals (including us) have built in evolutionary behaviour to prolong the species survival. An animal does not kill it's offspring because of morality but because it makes no sense. However a lot of animals will only feed the strong offspring and leave the weak. It is only humans who have manipulated the use of morals into a set of rules that have to be followed or else punishment ensues. I'm not saying the concept of morals are bad, but they have been used a tool of manipulation.

 

[xboxfan34]

No "dumbing down"? Evolving? More like devolving. I'll give you 2 examples:

And notice how those two are the ass-end of most jokes.

 

[maxpowr9]

And notice how those two are the ass-end of most jokes.

The two lesbians should scissor.

 

[c0nfused]

Okay.

Forget survival. Would you steal money to buy something that you couldn't afford but didn't need? Or steal something simply because you just wanted it?

-d-

I don't really need a lot of things, and I haven't really ever not been able to buy something that I want (within reason of course). I don't really know to be honest, it doesn't really cross my mind. I guess I would have done by now, if I was likely to. I wouldn't feel bad if I stole because again ultimately it doesn't matter, but I just don't think I care enough to steal.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

What interests me in this thread and more generally is the subject of morality.

It's irking pretty much every one when we interpret Dragononfire's op as him thinking he has moral superiority.

I personally think that he does think he has superiority over others and that is not only based in this thread, it is based on other posts of his. The fact that it bothers me beyond that is that it seems like he is gathering that information just from the internet and his own personal experiences. Which basing opinions on your own experience is fine to an extent, but the way he is speaking is more World view.

I have huge problems with people who have superiority complexes. I don't like to consider myself "better" than anyone else else whether it would be by morals, education, wealth, work, etc.

 

[oakpope]

^ I think I understand you. But I'll give you this hypothesis to make you understand my conundrum. Imagine you had better grades than anybody else in your high school class. Wouldn't that mean you are, factually, superior to the other on school matter ? It doesn't mean that you are superior morally. But it would make you better, wouldn't it ?

Can't we think that morality in our actual world is better than the moral beliefs of a Roman towards slavery, women rights, etc ? We can understand why they were what they were, but can't us progress in morality as we progress in hard sciences ? I want to believe we can

A human is a human and is as valuable as a human as any other human, but a given man's ideas may be less admirable, less 'right' than others.

 

[eastofeden]

^ I think I understand you. But I'll give you this hypothesis to make you understand my conundrum. Imagine you had better grades than anybody else in your high school class. Wouldn't that mean you are, factually, superior to the other on school matter ? It doesn't mean that you are superior morally. But it would make you better, wouldn't it ?

Can't we think that morality in our actual world is better than the moral beliefs of a Roman towards slavery, women rights, etc ? We can understand why they were what they were, but can't us progress in morality as we progress in hard sciences ? I want to believe we can

A human is a human and is as valuable as a human as any other human, but a given man's ideas may be less admirable, less 'right' than others.

Not really better...I know because I had "better" grades than everyone normally and I reminded an asshole teacher I had once that tried to use me as an example that I was good at repeating back the information that was given to me...PERIOD. It did not mean I was better than anyone. Everyone has something different to bring to the table and IF I am better than anyone else it is because I know and understand that. (PS...I am an INFP as well)

 

[c0nfused]

^ I think I understand you. But I'll give you this hypothesis to make you understand my conundrum. Imagine you had better grades than anybody else in your high school class. Wouldn't that mean you are, factually, superior to the other on school matter ? It doesn't mean that you are superior morally. But it would make you better, wouldn't it ?

Can't we think that morality in our actual world is better than the moral beliefs of a Roman towards slavery, women rights, etc ? We can understand why they were what they were, but can't us progress in morality as we progress in hard sciences ? I want to believe we can

A human is a human and is as valuable as a human as any other human, but a given man's ideas may be less admirable, less 'right' than others.

Why is a human as valuable as another human, but not as valuable as an animal? Do you not think that because you are human, you have a predisposed bias to humanity. Also I agree with you. Not everyone can be equal.