Posted by ezekiel 25:17 on September 07, 2001 at 04:21:35:
: Flat out cold blooded murder is evil in the eyes of almost everyone. If we were to allow it as an expression of freedom, against the wishes of the majority it would be seen as 'evil'.
What is the justification for war? Can both sides claim self-defence? When an activity is done for the supposed 'greater good' of mankind, and when 'God' is supposedly on both sides, which is correct? If murder is so evil, than you must further condemn capital punishment, euthanasia and abortion as regardless of the motive behind each, the end result is ultimately the same, the cessation of human life. Thus, how can the cessation of another's life be classified as evil?
Morals and ethics in any society is imposed by upbringing and environment. If you were born in a period of warfare with another nation, you would most likely hate the enemy and be prepared to kill for the patriotic good of your own nation.
The only inherently moralistic portion of any human is the trait for survival.
: There are far more fulfilling things than these things (for me anyway), you just have to find them within yourself.
Anything you can find internally without the need for surgery, is something I really don't need to know about :) What else is cluttered inside there but hope and love? Pride?
:Of course there is always going to be cases in law where justice is not served! But why do we have courts if people thought they didn't do anything. You would have to agree that in most cases there is someone in the 'right' according to a majority and someone who is not. Otherwise the case should be thrown out of court. A procedure is the only way there can be consistency without a dictatorship.
Why do we have Halloween, public holidays? Because it is traditional. Humans as a rule don't like change, and where one system seems capable of resolving problems inefficiently, it is seen as far better than any from change.
There are very few cases seen in civil court where one person is entirely at fault. Do we want consistency or do we want justice?
If you're seeking either, the courts are the wrong place to look. (see judgements from early 19th century and compare)
:It's going to be tough explaining this one to someone who doesn't believe that people essentially have the same basic moral code..... I don't buy into the argument that nudity in magazines or on television is offensive.... it's only when it's forced down your throat that it becomes offensive. I don't know of a country in the world where it's ok to walk down a public street nude without some form of prior warning.
How does bad language and nudity actully hurt humanity in any way?
:No, Of course not. Where did I ever suggest that the UN was just? I do however believe that the _majority_ of people in the world believed it was morally right to prevent Iraq from manufacturing 'weapons of mass destruction'.
Incorrect. The majority of western nations believed it was right to prevent Iraq from invading Kuwait. The reason: Kuwait is one of the world's leading manufacturers of oil, and Americans would receive a far cheaper price with the current sheikhs. Don't get sucked in by propaganda, any interference in the affairs of sovereign nations in other parts of the world always have ulterior motives. If Kuwait was a poverty stricken wreck which no one would want, nobody would care if Iraq took it over. The majority of NATO even objected to the bombing of Kosovo. Many Eastern nations actually supported Iraq overtly.
:: If it is against the moral belief of the majority, should it be outlawed?
:If it affects the majority significantly enough then yes.
Who makes that decision of what _significantly_ affects the majority?
: On many cases, majority = conformity = lack of freedom of thought. Although, on the flip side, there are a lot of weird individuals out there with extremist views.
:I disagree. The majority is by definition conforming to something. That doesn't mean they lack freedom of thought!!!
People as a rule don't lack freedom of thought, they just choose not to exercise it. It is far easier to accept the opinions and views of other people than it is to formulate one's ideals. It is far easier to accept than to question.
: How can recreational drugs, abortion and so forth ever reach a consensus, and what is the correct stance?
:Yes, they can reach a consensus, but there will always be people that disagree - you can't please everyone.
What is a consensus? 80%? Good luck on these issues.
:One at a time -
Recreational drugs: Only affect the majority in that they cause death and disease which costs money. Majority of people do not want to use recreational drugs, hence laws against them.
Taking recreational drugs doesn't necessarily cause death and disease any moreso than other facets of human life. Some drugs are undoubtedly dangerous but only to the individual and choosing to take these drugs is operating their own free will. What makes drugs such as marijuana any more dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes? Societally imposed, majority rules! (Oh my God, i've regressed to using exclamation marks :))
Are they really correct?
:Yes, upbringing has a major impact one someone's beliefs, but not their _moral_ beliefs. A child may have different moral beliefs only because they have not seen enough of life for themselves. eg. A parent may tell a child one thing, but eventually the child will verify that for him/herself.
What are the difference between 'beliefs' and 'moral beliefs'? How does a child verify these facts? By interaction with other people and and their environment. If these facts are never verified, there is little questioning ever done.
Again, I digress - but is it better to let a child have hope and fantasies by letting them believe in a fictional character (a la Santa Claus), or telling them the reality of life?
: You fit into the class of people who claim the search of knowledge is one of the factors of ultimate fulfilment.
:Thankyou for pidgeonholing me so conveniently. You must therefore be part of the class of people who believes there is no meaning to life, and just take it as it comes.
Oops, I apologise, but do you disagree?
I believe there is a meaning to life. However, my meaning is undoubtedly different from yours.
::It is easy to know what you want and want to achieve, it is far harder to actually achieve it.
:I think you are thinking materialistically. I mean what you want to achieve for your personal peace and satisfaction. Wealth/material usually doesn't come into that.
Example: Quitting smoking or bad habits. It is far harder to think about than achieve. Motivation, anger management, inner peace are others.
:Your idea of knowledge and my idea of learning are different. Very different.
That's because you don't believe in 'questioning' absolutely everything :)
:Denial will not cause you to reach happiness. It may cause temporary satisfaction in much the same way as a hit of smack, but in the end you will be left without purpose, without knowing what you want from life and certainly without getting it.
Denial has as much chance of success for allowing happiness as any other form of existence. If you live life and never consider anyone else or what you want to achieve, than your goal in life is already mostly complete.
If you have low expectations, than you are easily satisfied. Is this any better than to have high expectations, even knowing these can never be achieved? You are undoubtedly happier in the first example.
:How about sex and religion, or politics and religion.... much better....
Catholic priests. I don't think I'll go there.
Ah, I have many outlandish theories in regards to politics and religion, but these will wait for another day.
As they say 'a pleasure deferred, is a pleasure enhanced'.
The End (for now)
Post a Followup