Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-26-2005, 06:49 PM   #76
Loy
 
Loy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 408
Asurai-The problem I'm having with your posts is this idea that "morality" is something that is irrevocable, immutable, and unchnging. The thing you don't seem to get is that "morality" is as fluid as those who hold them.

Let me give you an example. I mentioned that soldiers have been forgiven of acts that we, as a culture, have deemed immoral. You said something to the effect that government does not have the power to "forgive" (make something evil into something good). OK, let's go with that.

Now, how do you justify soldiers killing....well, anybody really. See, "morality" (or, to be specific, "western morality") Says killing another person is wrong unless they specifically attack you (as an individual, not as an aspect of a larger entity, i.e. they're shooting at mike because he's Mike, not because he's Mike the American who happens to be with a whole shitload of other Americans), yet the main job of a soldier (once you strip away all the "defending the country" BS doublespeak used to cover up this little fact) is to kill whoever they're told to kill no matter what.

Now, one can easilly say "what if they're at war?", to which the easy retort would be "are you opening fire because they are attacking you or because you were told to?". Throw in a few civilians who have been caught in the crossfire and voila! A whole slew of moral ambiguities to ponder over.

Now, when this happens in this country (two groups are shooting at each other at random and accidentally kill a few bystanders), the charge is usually manslaughter, but can be bumped up to murder depending upon other factors in the situation. The person could be brought up on charges and be toseed into prison. However, if this same situation happens in "war", because the government has declared "war" (or, if congress hasn't actually bothered with the "declaring war" proccess, then it's a "security action"), then the very same actions are not seen as "criminal acts", but "heroic acts".

Now how is it that the same actions performed under the same set of situations be seen as morally unequal? Simple-morality is neither irrevocable, immutable, or unchanging.

If my example above is too confusing, let me throw out another, simpler, example-say a pedophile rapes my son, and, in a rage, I throttle the living shit out of him until his brains are oozing out of his ears and nostrils. I get brought up on charges, and am in front of a jury. There's a REALLY good chance I'd be let go.

Now, say I lived in ancient Greece, and a pedophile rapes my son, and, in a rage, I throttle the living shit out of him until his brains are oozing out of his ears and nostrils. Say I'm brought up on charges, and am brought in front of jury. What happens? I would probably be executed.

Now, same actions, same set of situations. What's different? Oh yeah, in Ancient Greece, pedarasty was an idealised form of love, whereas in Modern America, pederasty is looked down upon. Again, the morality fluctuates dependant upon extenuating circumastances.

I hope I'm not confusing anybody.
__________________
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
Loy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 07:04 PM   #77
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loy
Now, say I lived in ancient Greece, and a pedophile rapes my son, and, in a rage, I throttle the living shit out of him until his brains are oozing out of his ears and nostrils. Say I'm brought up on charges, and am brought in front of jury. What happens? I would probably be executed.
Nope.
No country belonging to the European Community has the death penalty.
even outside the EC, I'd be hard pressed to find a country other than Albania in the whole of Europe who has the death penalty (and I'm not even sure about Albania).

Good points people. Sorry for not replying properly, but I've spent the past few days in Lisbon catching up with my love life.

I know I got to write me some doodles about the yankees in WWII (I didn't forget, Tman).
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 07:21 PM   #78
Loy
 
Loy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 408
TStone-figured we'd get around to that soon enough.

Mael-I was speaking of Ancient Greece, and the only EC around back then were the Greek and Roman empires, who were very big fans of executions. Appologies if I didn't make that clear.
__________________
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
Loy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 07:29 PM   #79
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Great Loy!!!! Thanks for clearing that up.....

And just what the fuck am I supposed to do with this now?

"Countries whose laws do not provide for the death penalty for any crime

(View this information in table format)

ANDORRA, ANGOLA, ARMENIA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BELGIUM, BHUTAN, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA, CAMBODIA, CANADA, CAPE VERDE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EAST TIMOR, ECUADOR, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY, GUINEA-BISSAU, HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, KIRIBATI, LIECHTENSTEIN, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic), MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITIUS, MEXICO, MICRONESIA (Federated States), MOLDOVA, MONACO, MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NEPAL, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NIUE, NORWAY, PALAU, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAMOA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SENEGAL, SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO, SEYCHELLES, SLOVAK REPUBLIC, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TURKEY, TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, VANUATU, VATICAN CITY STATE, VENEZUELA"

Europe in bold and former portuguese territories underlined. "

Now you went and fucked me, thanks. :P
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2005, 10:17 AM   #80
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Loy - I think what your saying about fluid morality is actually more about ethics than morals. Morals are personal, and never change. Ethics however are simliar to morals, however are fluid and change with society.

For example, you mentioned death. We could extrapolate and say theft. If a person steals your car, its wrong. If say a government agent does it in an attempt to stop a crime, well then its not stealling its commandeering and deemed legal.

If the same car is taken by an official who then uses it for a personal benefit, then its still illegal, but thats more ethical than moral.

Stealing is always wrong. The way society views it is ethical. If society changes, and the views of society change, it doesn't mean that morals change, just the justification, therefore its more ethical than moral.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2005, 06:55 PM   #81
Loy
 
Loy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 408
Sternn-Actually, the terms "morality" and "ethics" are interchangable, since they mean the same exact thing (though the term "ethics" is used when studying a system of right and wrong, whilst "morals" is used when speaking about a more personal set of right and wrongs).

And again, you have it totally wrong about the fluidity of "morals". Even on a personal level, we are constantly changing our view of moral/immoral acts. Lets go with the example you used, theft.

OK, say I have a moral perogative that forbids me from stealing. Yet, say I have two kids who are hungry, and I'm poor and the only way to put food in their mouths is to steal a loaf of bread. Is it immoral for me to steal the bread? How does one justify stealing in a case like that? Simple, "my kids were hungry". Therefore, stealing is no longer an immoral act, even though I formerly had a perogative against it.

(side note-I find it kind of funny, discussing "morals" and 'ethics" with a hypocrite such as yourself, Sternn, but considering that what's actually going on is more of an "explanation" on my part than an actual discussion, I guess I shouldn't be)

Mael-you can leave the list up, though it wouldn't do any good. Remember, "Gothic.Net" is Bush Country, and I doubt people here would have any problems with executing violent criminals (myself included, though I do have problems with the way the system itself is set up). Though (just to fling some mud) I do find it funny that Bush, back when he was Governor of Texas, set the record for executions. I find it even funnier that he had no qualms with executing kids, retards, and even people who were innocent but used up all of their appeals. And what's the most hilarious thing? The only person who he ever pardoned was Henry Lee Lucas. Now THAT'S fucking hilarious, especially when he spoke of the death penalty as being used against the most horrific of all criminals, yet refused to use it for that exact person. Hah fucking Hah.....

And I just realised how far we've veered from the "nature vs. technology" BS argument. Don't know whether I should appologise or not.
__________________
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
Loy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2005, 07:22 PM   #82
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
I don't mind the derailing at all, as it is because of healthy discussion, and not the drooling and flaming that goes on, for a change.

As for morals vs ethics, I reckon you're both right.
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2005, 07:55 PM   #83
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Loy - my point exactly (well, the personal vs. the society with ethics and morals).

And yes, to some extent your are right when you make a snide, but yet true comment about my personal morals. Many would not agreed with the things I do, support, or am willing to do. Of course I personally think of it like the scene in Gross Point Blank when yer man explains his career like this, 'I have a set of morals that the military found to be...flexible'.

In the end, I do what I do to futher the cause of greater good. My whole life is basically screwed. Started as such, and I'm sure will end as such. Bouncing from ophanages to foster home to other homes and then being bounced around the legal system and thrown in the military didn't help either. I'm not making excuses, just telling it like it happened. I'm not proud of alot of it, but I'm also by no means ashamed.

But back to the main topic here - my morals, as all moral, do not change. Only the reflection of my acts, through what society calls ethics change. Killing is wrong. I don't think because I did it for a good reason makes it any better. What I do know is at the end of the day, other people won't have to deal with the life I lead or put up with the pain I suffer because of what I do. That doesn't make it anymore right, just makes it tollerable ethically by parts of society who empathize with my actions.

Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2005, 10:01 PM   #84
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
Now I’ll disagree with Loy on morals and ethics being interchangeable. I believe there is a difference, albeit slight, in the application of either. I see morals belonging to the subclass of human, personable interaction, and ethics belonging to the commerce of industry. Two different guidelines, though sharing similar integrities, but not always similar in design. To illustrate this point, well say it’s morally reprehensible for someone to kill someone else just for the hell of it, but it’s perfectly fine to fire someone, which will kill that someone financially, just for the hell of it. We can even say the laws that punish someone killing someone else just for the hell of it are much stiffer, the investigation much more rigorous, than the laws to investigate unwarranted job termination.

One is steeped in morals, one in ethics, they are both similar, but each separate.
Run-on sentence time! Ok, I had to read your example twice to get what you were saying, because I'm a dumbass, and that seems like it could be right, but I don't think you can completely separate the two like that, at least not for your example. Firing someone for no reason when you know they will have a bitchass time surviving after that, well, I think it's not just unethical, but also immoral. I wish I remembered more from my ethics class last year... Damn.

Quote:
When a small majority determines the greater good for everyone else, then that’s tyranny.
Did you mean a small minority? Because otherwise that's not tyranny, that's a typical result of a representative democracy. Unless you want to argue that the US is a tyranny (plus all those other democratic countries that are utterly unimportant to me because America is all that counts).

Quote:
You’re only right when you can convince most everyone else that you’re right, and when you can’t you’re wrong.
So you're a total moral relativist? Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing, but really? I want to know if I read this last part wrong.

Quote:
Sternn, yes your morals change. They are defined, refined, and motivated by those around you. In nearly two years of posting you have yet to show us your naked cock. Now you might have been dying to show us your cock that entire time, maybe you were chomping at the bit to show us wee willy winky, but the fact is something stopped you.
Um, I don't think I want to know your thought process in this...
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2005, 11:21 PM   #85
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
My apologizes for the, ahem, running on.
Oh, no no, I was talking about MY run-on sentence. Sorry about that.

Quote:
Let’s just cut to the gristle, shall we? Yes, firing someone for no goddamn reason whatsoever, just because (you don’t like a person, their color, their religion, their beliefs) is immoral, imho (yes I feel the need to run on again fuckit) but the ethics of it are harder to prove in court. Morally it’s something we (most of us) disagree with, ethically it’s something people do every fucking day of the week, twice on Sundays. So we could, in a round about way, say people are more ethically inclined to screw each other over.
We could say that. Probably true, if you see ethics as being more determined by the society around you as opposed to more personal morals. I'm definitely more likely to break an ethical rule if I don't personally believe it's a moral one. (Did I get your point here?)

Quote:
A small majority smacks of nepotism, and seems more nefarious in design as opposed to a small minority.
If you say so, although that's gotta be some big-ass family.

Quote:
Nothing is set in stone, surely
What about those commandments I've heard so much about?

Quote:
You’re only right when you can convince most everyone else that you’re right, and when you can’t you’re wrong.[...] That doesn’t mean you are _right_ but that you hold enough power at that particular moment to be perceived as right.
Ah, ok, perceived as right. I'm with you there.

Quote:
You have apparently missed the post of his naked cock with Al’s face photoshopped on it? Look around the threads, I know it’s hard to find (pun intended) but if you look long and hard enough…there it is.
Yeah... I found it....
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2005, 06:28 AM   #86
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Ethics: set of rules enabling people and organizations to fuck someone over legally.

Morals: envy and opression disguised as virtues.

Democracy: political system where the will of the many tramples the needs of the few.

Tman= thanks for explaining "right" and "wrong" better. As Galileu Galilei (who looked at the sky, wasn't a queen, but was definately gay) aptly demonstrated, most people can and ARE often wrong. Again, thanks for clearing that up. Irony is sometimes missed when read.
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2005, 07:57 AM   #87
ghostposts
 
ghostposts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 232
I have to agree with Loy on a lot of this. Morals are fluid, changing with the times, popular opinion, and personal evolution. That's why there are efforts to change the beliefs of larger popluations. From "public awareness" campaigns by special interest groups to the media and intertainment industry, someone is always trying to alter public perception on different ideas, issues and beliefs. Throw in political movements, religious movements, the list is endless.

Ethics (if you define this as a list of rules for popular behavior and belief) can affect us morally. If we are influenced by society and by those around us, then a commonly held belief can alter our perceptions.

Personal morals and ethics can be altered by the input we recieve. Music, literature, ect. can introduce new ideas and viewpoints that can lead us to change the way we view a moral issue. Then, if enough poeple accept the new standard, it becomes the popular one.

Examples are too numerous to mention.

Unless a person's standards are set by something that does not lend itself easily to open interpretation, like a political theory or a religious document, then they are vulnerable to change.

Even those are vulnerable, although more resistant. I've noticed that, at least in my experience, one is less likely to change a cultural standard than a religious one. It seems that many people are willing to accept the viewpoints of those outside their own belief system (Although not all are).
Many around here are not strongly religious. Many change from one belief system to another. Perhaps where religion and culture are strongly intertwined, it is different.

Superstitions also seem more resistant. It's like, if you grew up with an absolute, then it's harder to accept changing it.

The more cultural exchange a person witnesses, the more likely he or she is to find new ideas and values to espouse. Living in Texas near a military base, I often see this. We have several cultural influences that come into play, from immigration, from those servicemen and women who travel, from foreign servicemen who visit and from living near a border to Mexico. They do change popular perception. I'm sure that if I lived in an even more culturally diverse location I would see more of it.
ghostposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2005, 08:09 AM   #88
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Granny - good one with the commandments!

I admit my views and perceptions of biased based on my religion, but I also know from studying various other religions and having travelled the world and stayed with, broke bread with, and spent many hours conversersing with various people of other religions one thng - most of the tenants that hold true for one religion hold true for all religions.

No religion oks murder, theft, or anything else. They all condem them for the most part. And even as a Catholic, I can tell you killing for ANY reason is wrong as is theft. However ever though its through religion we can be forgiven. Doesn't mean what we did was right, just means we are forgiven for doing something wrong. So morality based on most religions doesn't change. Like Granny said - it's set in stone. If you sin, its still a sin even though it may be justified. And if its justified you can be forgiven, but it doesn't make what you did any more right or moral than it was when you did it.

Tis why we have confession!

Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2005, 12:02 PM   #89
ghostposts
 
ghostposts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 232
gotta argue this one. murder, for instance.

It used to be that, according to some caucasion religious persons, killing a person of color wasn't murder. These twisted souls didn't believe the people they killed were human. So, although the rules didn't change, how they are applied has. (Thank god.)

This wasn't the lunatic fringe, Cap. It was mainstream in my culture. Now this is a position taken only by the lunatic fringes.

IMO it was always murder, but you had followers of the bible who didn't see it that way.

So, public opinion has altered the perception of a great many people.

As society changes, our method of interpreting the tennants of our faith and our way of applying them is altered.

Otherwise, we'd still have many things in the mainstream society that have either been relegated to the outsiders or done away with.

The rules have been carved in stone. How we interpret them has not. Thus divorced baptist preachers, women in pants, ect. These things are no longer considered wrong, but they once were immoral.
ghostposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2005, 03:02 PM   #90
WolfMoon
 
WolfMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I own Pitseleh!!
Posts: 3,747
Spot on, Ghosty!
WolfMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2005, 04:34 PM   #91
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
most of the tenants that hold true for one religion hold true for all religions.
And what about people who aren't religious? Religion isn't the only thing in the world providing moral and ethical guidelines.

Quote:
And even as a Catholic, I can tell you killing for ANY reason is wrong
Oh really? So if a guy comes into my room with a couple atomic bombs and says he's off to go blow up the world, it's a sin if I kill him? I would have to go to confession after saving the world because even though it was "justified," it was still a sin? What if I had done nothing, just said "ok, have fun!" and then died in the resulting atomic blast? Would I go to hell for fucking over the world or heaven for not ending that guy's life a little bit early? Purgatory?

Quote:
as is theft.
I would go into another completely plausible hypothetical here, but it would also involve atomic bombs, and I don't want to overplay my hand.

Quote:
However ever though its through religion we can be forgiven.
I'm glad your god is generous enough to forgive me for saving the world. :)

Quote:
And if its justified you can be forgiven, but it doesn't make what you did any more right or moral than it was when you did it.
You think the reason for doing something has no bearing on its morality? Are you kidding me?

Oh and ghostposts, the Nation of Islam has this cute little myth about how white people came to be: Some black magician/scientist was trying to create something new, and he ended up creating this deranged, rabid, human-like creature, devoid of any pigmentation, that just ran around yelping at, and killing, people. Just so you know it's not just the caucasion Christians who are capable of that sort of racist mindset, but otherwise I agree with you. Historically, religions' definitions of morality have changed with, or behind, the world around them.
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2005, 08:58 PM   #92
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Ghosty - did you not read my post? I'm the one who said all killing is wrong, PERIOD. I mean, I don't remeber side notes on the 10 Commandments stating...

Thou Shall Not Kill *(Except blacks)

All killing is wrong. period. Catholics are against birth control, abortion, and capitol murder. Because some prodestant went and redifined it, well that makes him and those who followed him idiots. I think we are all on the same page with that one.

Granny - turn the other cheek. See, life is not a resting place, its a testing place. Just because you dont shoot the guy with the detanator doesnt mean that bomb will go off. Have faith. Many things could happen. Ever heard of divine intervention?

And if you feel you have to shoot him, it is still a sin. Legally you will get off, but you still took a human life, something you cant give back. But depending on your faith, you can be forgiven. As far as the purgatory question, thats waaay to metaphyscial as who really know what God thinks and what he can and will excuse? Can anyone know? We just know the guidlines listed for us and how to seek forgivnees after that your into a realm many argue over.

Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2005, 09:59 PM   #93
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
All killing is wrong. period. Catholics are against birth control, abortion, and capitol murder. Because some prodestant went and redifined it, well that makes him and those who followed him idiots. I think we are all on the same page with that one.
What "all" are you talking about, because I know I'm sure as shit not on the same page. For one thing, birth control isn't murder in any way. It prevents a life from being formed, it doesn't end one. For another thing, I don't think it's wrong to kill a guy who's planning on killing every single person on earth, and has the ability to do it.

Quote:
Granny - turn the other cheek. See, life is not a resting place, its a testing place. Just because you dont shoot the guy with the detanator doesnt mean that bomb will go off. Have faith. Many things could happen. Ever heard of divine intervention?
Wow, I come up with a hypo about a guy with a bunch of atomic bombs and you tell me to turn the other cheek? Where has this "leave it up to god" attitude been the whole time that you've been arguing for being an activist and actually doing things to change the world? Honestly, this whole thing coming from you just strikes me as being hypocritical and/or fake. If you believe so much in divine intervention, why do you think it matters so much if you organize a rally, or shoot kids with paint balls, or whatever else you do in real life?

Quote:
And if you feel you have to shoot him, it is still a sin.
So if I kill the guy, actually let's say there were ten guys who had the bombs and I killed them all because I'm a fucking ninja, so I killed ten people, and never go to confession because I feel good about saving the world--I'm going to hell when I die? That is fucked up.

Quote:
Legally you will get off, but you still took a human life, something you cant give back.
Those bitchasses were gonna die anyways when they exploded the bombs, and so was everyone else on earth.

Quote:
But depending on your faith, you can be forgiven.
Depending on my faith, which means what? Only if I'm Catholic will I be able to be forgiven for my sins if I kill those ten deranged assholes?

Quote:
As far as the purgatory question, thats waaay to metaphyscial as who really know what God thinks and what he can and will excuse? Can anyone know?
Can anyone know? That's a good fucking question. Unfortunately, your whole post has been informing me as to what god will and will not excuse me for. So ask yourself this question: how can anyone know what god thinks? Then tell me how you apparently know.

Quote:
We just know the guidlines listed for us and how to seek forgivnees after that your into a realm many argue over.
Not buying it. Who made those guidelines? Men? Because how do those men know what god wants people to do? How do those men know that god wants people to prostrate themselves before it and seek forgiveness, or that god thinks murder is bad?
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2005, 09:54 AM   #94
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Never said what 'I' would do, just said what your 'supposed' to do. What I do and how I deal with it is between me and 'my' God.

Just saying morally, there is no grey area.

I hate to half to quote the Boondock Saints but...

Murder, stealing, **** - these are all things men of all religions know are wrong.

Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2005, 11:39 PM   #95
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loy
Asurai-The problem I'm having with your posts is this idea that "morality" is something that is irrevocable, immutable, and unchnging. The thing you don't seem to get is that "morality" is as fluid as those who hold them.
I understand what you mean quite clearly; I simply rebel against that notion down to the very bottom of my soul.

Quote:
Now, how do you justify soldiers killing....well, anybody really.
One: soldiers killing people who want to kill us, is entirely fine, since a soldier's job (despite your calling it BS) is to protect his country. Yes, this is done by killing, but that's simple an effect: the primary purpose is to defend.

Two: if soldiers killed Osama bin Laden, I would call that the execution of a murderer, i.e. justice.

Three: soldiers, too, are entitled to defend themselves if fired upon.

So, I can justify it by appeals to national defense, self defense, and justice. I'm sure that I could think of others, if those don't please you.

Quote:
See, "morality" (or, to be specific, "western morality") Says killing another person is wrong unless they specifically attack you
No, it doesn't. "Western morality" says that murdering an innocent person undeserving of death is wrong. If one is attacked, as one mentioned, then one can defend himself, but it's also perfectly within the bounds of Western morality to execute a murderer.

Quote:
yet the main job of a soldier (once you strip away all the "defending the country" BS doublespeak used to cover up this little fact) is to kill whoever they're told to kill no matter what.
Incorrect. If given an illegal order, a soldier is mandated to refuse to carry it out. If, say, a marine is ordered to fire on unarmed civilians, he is obligated to ignore that order -- and he would be prosecuted in a court of law if he carried it out.

Quote:
Now, one can easilly say "what if they're at war?", to which the easy retort would be "are you opening fire because they are attacking you or because you were told to?". Throw in a few civilians who have been caught in the crossfire and voila! A whole slew of moral ambiguities to ponder over.
Quite simple. See the above about illegal orders. Now, if enemies fire at a group of soldiers from within a group of civilians, then the civilians had damned well better get lost (only an idiot would stand still inside a group of men firing at people in a tank). If they're being used as human shields, then try to not hit them, but any deaths that result are to be blamed entirely upon those who used them as shields in the first place.

Moral ambiguity solved.

Quote:
Now, when this happens in this country (two groups are shooting at each other at random and accidentally kill a few bystanders), the charge is usually manslaughter, but can be bumped up to murder depending upon other factors in the situation. The person could be brought up on charges and be toseed into prison. However, if this same situation happens in "war", because the government has declared "war" (or, if congress hasn't actually bothered with the "declaring war" proccess, then it's a "security action"), then the very same actions are not seen as "criminal acts", but "heroic acts."
You're not actually arguing; you're simply restating your position that something called "criminal" by society is criminal and something called "heroic" by society is heroic. (Yes, I realize that that's slightly exaggerated.)

Quote:
Now how is it that the same actions performed under the same set of situations be seen as morally unequal? Simple-morality is neither irrevocable, immutable, or unchanging.
You did not demonstrate that they are morally unequal; you merely stated that they are perceived as being morally unequal. But the situations are not identical: soldiers' killing enemies/terrorists is not the same as two rival gangs' shooting at each other.

Quote:
say a pedophile rapes my son, and, in a rage, I throttle the living shit out of him until his brains are oozing out of his ears and nostrils. I get brought up on charges, and am in front of a jury. There's a REALLY good chance I'd be let go.
Correct. Consider it justice.

Quote:
Now, say I lived in ancient Greece, and a pedophile rapes my son, and, in a rage, I throttle the living shit out of him until his brains are oozing out of his ears and nostrils. Say I'm brought up on charges, and am brought in front of jury. What happens? I would probably be executed.
Correct. But, again, you're not actually saying anything about morality itself; you're simply pointing out that different people at different times perceive morality differently, which is obvious.

Quote:
Now, same actions, same set of situations. What's different? Oh yeah, in Ancient Greece, pedarasty was an idealised form of love, whereas in Modern America, pederasty is looked down upon. Again, the morality fluctuates dependant upon extenuating circumastances.
No, the legality fluctuates according to circumstances; whether the thing was itself evil or not, by an objective standard, remains the same.

Allow me an example: let's say that, in 2005 America, a woman knocks on my door, begging to be hidden from someone trying to murder her. Now, let's say that in 1939 Nazi Germany, a Jew knocks on my door, begging to be hidden from someone trying to murder him.

In both situations, the morally obligatory thing to do would be to try to save their lives. In the first, I would be considered somewhat of a hero by the media/society; in the second, I would be denounced as a conspirator and likely condemned to death by the media/society.

Meanwhile, you would be arguing that the moral thing to do would be to send the Jew to his death, because the people of that place and of that time would have considered that the moral thing to do.

I'm saying that the right, good thing, in that case, would be to have hidden the person, society's opinion be damned.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2005, 11:59 PM   #96
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loy
OK, say I have a moral perogative that forbids me from stealing. Yet, say I have two kids who are hungry, and I'm poor and the only way to put food in their mouths is to steal a loaf of bread. Is it immoral for me to steal the bread? How does one justify stealing in a case like that? Simple, "my kids were hungry". Therefore, stealing is no longer an immoral act, even though I formerly had a perogative against it.
If one would, in that case, say that stealing is an immoral act, he never held it to be truly evil; he simply believed that it was evil as long as he had no reason to commit it, and I can think of nothing more narcissitic than that.

Even in that case, stealing would be wrong. Why? Your being hungry does not give you the right to steal what belongs to someone else, even if he's Bill Gates and would never notice the loss. Again: the fact that you do not possess something, does not give you a moral blank check to take it from someone who does possess it.

(And before you pull the "you would let your kids starve" line, I answer: if it became absolutely necessary for me to steal, if nobody would extend the slightest charity by free will, then yes, I would steal a bit of bread to feed my kids, but I would still consider the act evil, I would simply willingly commit an act that I knew to be evil and hope that I'd done enough good to make up for it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
Never said what 'I' would do, just said what you're 'supposed' to do. What I do and how I deal with it is between me and 'my' God.

Just saying morally, there is no grey area.
I agree with Sternn on those points.

Quote:
I doubt people here would have any problems with executing violent criminals
None whatsoever. Actually, every time a first-degree murderer gets off with life in prison, I lament the injustice that his life was spared.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 12:05 PM   #97
WolfMoon
 
WolfMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I own Pitseleh!!
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
Never said what 'I' would do, just said what you're 'supposed' to do. What I do and how I deal with it is between me and 'my' God.

Just saying morally, there is no grey area.
I agree with Sternn on those points.

Quote:
I doubt people here would have any problems with executing violent criminals
None whatsoever. Actually, every time a first-degree murderer gets off with life in prison, I lament the injustice that his life was spared.
Okay, so let me get this straight. You're saying that although killing is wrong, there are instances in which you would support it, yes? That makes the death penalty, which you support, evil. I think you're falling into a grey area whether you want to or not, Asurai.

And I think both you and Loy are wasting your time debating, you're just going to end up agreeing in the end. :P

And I don't think Loy was saying that it makes something 'okay' just because society deems it 'okay'. You might be over thinking things again, luv.

:wink:
WolfMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 02:44 PM   #98
Loy
 
Loy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 408
Asurai-
1-No, the job of a soldier is to kill/hurt whoever they're told to, and not to question those orders. "Defending the country" is the line used to justify their actions to civilians who don't wanna/can't quite seem to wrap their heads around the notion that these guys do happen to kill, and whilst we're always told killing is wrong, we've gotta justify the actions of the military (and intelligence community, but this is a bit off my point). Hence, "defending the country". If you wanna talk history of the military, and see just what exactly "defending the country" involved (and in some cases, still involves) we can go. However, once you take a good hard look at such a thing, you'll begin to understand why I look at the military as "the strong-arm of the hegenomy" rather than "defenders of society"... or maybe you already know all the facts and refuse to think of anything American as being wrong in any way, and will find another way to spin the facts, as you've done so many times before.

2-You rebel against the notion of morality being fluid. Can I ask why, or is it because admitting the fluidity of morality/ethics (ps-TStone, on a linguistic level, the terms "morals" and "ethics" are interchangable, it's just how they're used that makes most people think of them as being two separate definitives) admits that any stance one makes could be easilly disproven/disagreed with by a different set of circumstances, or maybe there's just a fear of admitting the fact that there is no such thing as a moralistic/ethical base that's not created by the social fabric and time, as wacko right-wingers would love for everybody to believe? Just curious as to why you refuse to believe in the fluidity of morals/ethics.

3-After reading your 'retort" of my "soldier/gang' situation, and I'm seeing the type of whitewashing I spoke about earlier ("it's a military situation", "they're terrorists", and plenty more that are quite funny). Maybe you should actually read my example again, rather than cherry-picking from it in order to throw out a few cheap slurs alluding to a "treasonous streak" on my part (or, as I've said before, if you're gonna insult me, don't be a fucking pussy about it, just do it. Hell, I gave Bexxle a list of insults she could use. If you can find it, feel free to crib off of it). Sorry, no matter how verbose iit is, I can spot bullshit and insulting a mile away.

4-Just an FYI, if a soldier is given an order, they have to carry it out, else face court-martial. They can bring up the Geneva Conference, and that whole "do not carry out illegal orders", but we've been trying to weave our way out of following our own rules since....well, the beginning of the Republic, really. Again, I could go into history if you'd like, but it wopn't be pretty.

Granny-just a clarification, Catholics (well, actually a minority of them. Sadly enough, it's the minority in charge....hey, just like this country) see the prevention of life being created as a sin LIKEN to, but not equal to, murder. It goes into the Magdalene cult and their beliefs, along with the idea of "fruitful and mulitply" that all the desert religions have.

Sternn-now I remember why I left seminary in the first place.
__________________
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
Loy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 02:52 PM   #99
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
Never said what 'I' would do, just said what your 'supposed' to do. What I do and how I deal with it is between me and 'my' God.

Just saying morally, there is no grey area.
I wasn't saying shit about what you would do, I was saying, what would happen to me if I did those things? I kill ten people to save the entire fucking world, goddammit, and you're saying that there's no difference between that and going outside and shooting ten innocent people because I'm bored? If that's really what your religion says, I'm glad I don't believe in your religion.

No gray area in morality... Pardon my English, but what a crock of shit. You want to try and disprove my belief? Answer my previous question, the hypothetical asking what would happen if I let the mass-murdering bitchasses go on their way, because killing is a sin, and then they blow up the whole fucking world, showing how there's no gray area there.

Quote:
Murder, stealing, **** - these are all things men of all religions know are wrong.
Yeah, again, it's not just religions that say that's wrong. I don't believe in god and I think those things are all wrong, under most circumstances. I have the freedom, that apparently you don't, to judge situations for myself and see that in some cases, killing somebody is a moral neccesity, and when something is a moral neccesity, it can't be a sin.
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 03:05 PM   #100
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Quite simple. See the above about illegal orders. Now, if enemies fire at a group of soldiers from within a group of civilians, then the civilians had damned well better get lost (only an idiot would stand still inside a group of men firing at people in a tank). If they're being used as human shields, then try to not hit them, but any deaths that result are to be blamed entirely upon those who used them as shields in the first place.

Moral ambiguity solved.
There was no moral ambiguity in the first place, according to your other statements. Killing somebody is evil. End of story. Doesn't matter if they're attacking you, or about to kill other people-taking another human life is evil.

Quote:
Actually, every time a first-degree murderer gets off with life in prison, I lament the injustice that his life was spared.
But, but... It would be evil to murder him.
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
twilight crying goddess xxxQueenOfDarknessxx Literature 2 11-30-2010 08:58 AM
Deus Ex Daedalus TV, Movies, & Games 11 12-16-2007 04:27 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:31 PM.