The Responsibility of Man

[OldScratch]

Originally Posted by wildfyr

^ Are you trying to defend causing (undo) harm to others?

No, I'm explaining that the definition of what is due and undue in terms of causing harm is sometimes wide open for interpretation. If you are asking if I am suggesting causing harm to someone for no sensible reason is defensible the answer is no.

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by OldScratch

No, I'm explaining that the definition of what is due and undue in terms of causing harm is sometimes wide open for interpretation. If you are asking if I am suggesting causing harm to someone for no sensible reason is defensible the answer is no.

can you clarify what you meant by sensible? sounds like you're referring to something moralistic.

I mean, say someone beats people up because it makes him feel tough, or he rapes women because he gets off on it, those are perfectly intelligible---if that's what you mean by 'sensible'---and how rational such acts are have the same questionable status as people who eat too many cheeseburgers. Are you positing something which distinguishes the former from the later case in some relevant sense (i.e., as opposed to merely being more complicated)?

[razoredge]

thats good seditious because I gave the guy a proper responce... I returned him his values.........

einherjar - first let me say I use I alot because I can only speak for myself so while it seems arrogant or autobigraphical its really not, in fact it may lead to my beliefs in self accountability. Im not religious, yet I have high moral code as to affecting others lives. I dont fear death infact at this age Im ready, seen enough lets say, and I hope for nothing more than dreamless sleep, I will be bummed if I find myself on some other plane having to deal with more bullshit... point being, I just want to be able to live with myself while Im here, so my conscience speaks to me all the time. I've done some kneejerk things Im not proud of either so dont get me wrong in my appraisal of myself. I dont place values or morals... for example on the consenting sexual kind because thats some form of mutual argreement or so we always hope, cant tell sometimes... lol

I agree with what seditious said regarding having to make personal evalutations when it comes to work and there are so many factors tugging at us. I somewhat already covered this. I quickly become very uncomfortable and a piece of the puzzle that doesnt fit. This has not had a positive effect on my life and I pay the price but I have no control over it. I see a world or society that has no interest in doing the right thing, you know "listen to the money talk"... well I hear other things, nothing I can do about it. Im OK with my views but it doesnt fit, others just ride the wave... my loss.

Karma - I have come to understand karma, the hard way. I've seen it happen to others but so many that deserve a good dose of karma never recieve it, so I have no conclusion for this other than it probably doesnt exist either.

Forcing morals ? Once again there are extremes, some opposed views we can tolerate for the sake of still waters and some I will not. If someone is in my oxygen zone and operating on an extreme I will create a far more uncomfortable situation. Been there and done it, as is more than obvious I have never been a contender for popularity contests.

But here is what I have come to ponder (not really, conclude is more like it). I believe in the weakest link or lowest common denominator theory. If someone has low moral values and disregard for the well being of others, and we let it slide are we now not reduced to lower values and therefore subject to having their values forced upon us ?

[razoredge]

Originally Posted by OldScratch

"Morality" is nothing more than a code of conduct, a set of rules created by man, for man(see "Geneology Of Morals" Nietzsche for further enlightenment). You are, by implication, assigning morality some cosmic(or perhaps spiritual)origin, something man is innately and universally imbued with, and insisting that these moral boundaries are collectively acknowledged by all of mankind. History is replete with volumes full of example to prove that such an assertion is demonstrably false.

But ya see... what you are refering to is another highly inherent human trait. Its called greed and selfishness, this is why over the centuries man developed codes of ethics... though thier application seems vague. The line doesnt stagger only the personal application

for the "cultures" everyone is speaking of a simple application of their own infliction will soon find you floating in a river of tears laden with their code of ethics

history has more than enough proof of this as well

[Einherjar86]

Originally Posted by razoredge

But here is what I have come to ponder (not really, conclude is more like it). I believe in the weakest link or lowest common denominator theory. If someone has low moral values and disregard for the well being of others, and we let it slide are we now not reduced to lower values and therefore subject to having their values forced upon us ?

Well, if they exhibit no values or morals, then they can't force any upon us. Only people with strong moral convictions would feel that they were being trespassed against. I agree that people can defend their own moral views to the death if they wish. I would. However, in the face of adversity, it seems that it would make more sense for all men to abandon morals and simply embrace the struggle for survival. A world without morality is not that difficult to imagine, and actually would not be as chaotic and anarchistic as you might think. There would still be crime and criminals, but no more than there are now (or possibly a very trivial, minute increase). In an amoral world, human beings would operate according to need, as Seditious outlined. Human beings who needed to commit crimes to survive, or desire to commit crimes in order to live better, would do so (as many do now). Those who do not need to or feel no desire to would not, the same as now. Despite what William Golding says, I believe that most human beings would not commit violent, "immoral" acts simply because they could. That would attract unwanted negative attention towards them and fare them badly in the long run.

Originally Posted by razoredge

But ya see... what you are refering to is another highly inherent human trait. Its called greed and selfishness, this is why over the centuries man developed codes of ethics... though thier application seems vague. The line doesnt stagger only the personal application

In a world without morals, I think there would be no greed and selfishness. There would be only human ambition. The concept of greed springs from the creation of moral boundaries. It would be irrelevant to discuss greed in an amoral world. Codes of ethics were not created because of greed; the idea of greed was actually created by a system of ethics.

[razoredge]

So your saying criminals are criminals as a means of survival only ? (granted this is the case with inner city drug culture) but many I know of are just lazy dirtbags. Then to further what I said about those with low morals as well as reversing the tides... go steal from a theif and watch him become a killer.

Then you say screw ethics, values and standards, go for the dog eat dog world, well that is what society has been doing for the past 30 years and we watch the rich get richer and the poor poorer, separation of the classes is gigantic now as they use others to meet their greed (see my comment on application). Now what does this do ? This gives few a fighting chance, if you doubt that see my referal to inner city drug culture, what is there for them to do other than dealin' and hoein' ?

Now if you want to loose morals/values/standards/ethics and only place value on struggle for survival does this mean we will be allowed to kill the wealthy and remove our fair share from their bank accounts for our labors involved that made them wealthy in the first place ? afterall we are talking about survival and we only want "mine".

History - lets look back at cultures that had lower morals... how did the majority of their populations live ? Who benefited by this more primitive standard ? Is it a suggestion that while we have physically and mentally evolved that our standards should not ? Its not like we're simply gathering food anymore where the strong, hardy and the quick survive... quite the opposite in fact. If that were the case the inner city people would be ruling the field.

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by razoredge

So...


...field.

does this cargohold of herring have anything to do with the validity of your preferred morality?

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by Einherjar86

In a world without morals, I think there would be no greed and selfishness. There would be only human ambition. The concept of greed springs from the creation of moral boundaries.

sounds too idealistic to me. It sounds like the Communist dream... as if there would be no rapists because sex is free for everyone next to the free-for-all Walmart. Not everyone can sit in the front row. there's always going to be resentment, even where material possessions are available without cost (hell, just look at young siblings... no work, no money, no costs...and they still find plenty to be upset about lol)

[Blowtus]

I took him to mean that the terms would be useless, not that people would stop wanting stuff...

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by Blowtus

I took him to mean that the terms would be useless, not that people would stop wanting stuff...

true. I see how you can get that.
Didn't figure that myself since for my part I always try to punctuate that sort of thing differently.

e.g.,
In a culture that doesn't employ moral claims, I think there would be no "greed" and "selfishness" as such. These are only human ambition, and wouldn't be labeled otherwise. The concept of greed springs from the creation of moral boundaries.