[CP5670]

So in other words, what you are saying is that anything we can possibly do is ethical, by the very fact that we are doing it. That actually sounds perfectly fine to me. But we are talking more about the "popular" ethics of today's society.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Snakeseyes


Never answer a question with a question.

Now that you started, I 'll answer you with another question. Do you believe that the american civil war was an act of your governement that was for the best interest of its people???

Yes, because the North viewed slaves as people, the South did not. The South acted out of the best interests of its people, because they did not view slaves as people

[CP5670]

There you go: a matter of competing interests, not a matter of ethical values, and the same goes for the conflicts of today.

[Bobboau]

"That's not what I am saying; how is following the ethics like a super religion helping us in our objective of attaining knowledge?"
why is it that obtaining knowleg is our devinely ordaned objective

"So now bin Laden is rationally justified in his objectives, eh?"
no but he has an internal emotional justification
we are the infedel, i.e. not muslums, not part of his alignment, thus we can be treated as objects without any moral repracusions (in his mind), just as I can kill a bug, or eat a hamburger without feeling that I am doing anything wrong

emotions may not be or lead to a logical result but they have a logical perpose and origin

"And what do your life's thoughts have to do with passing on genes?"
nothing, but they don't have to, that's evolution, my thoughts and the actions that I make as a result of them will have a direct result upon my liniages survival,
just as my parents were.

[Bobboau]

actualy BLs answer is more evedent to my point,
people have a drive to protect other people,
what you define as a person may vary,
thus conflict

[Blue Lion]

I can almost sum up this whole thing with one statement

Everything is relative.

 You have your idea of right and wrong, I have mine. Neither can be proven. The problem is people trying to force theirs on others

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Bobboau
actualy BLs answer is more evedent to my point,
people have a drive to protect other people,
what you define as a person may vary,
thus conflict

Neither side can be seen as wrong, simply because both sides acted on what they thought was right.

Weeee, another topic change

[CP5670]

why is it that obtaining knowleg is our devinely ordaned objective

Because all other objectives are far more contradictory and logically inconsistent (including the survival of the species by itself), and we cannot do nothing. I said this many times before.

no but he has an internal emotional justification
we are the infedel, i.e. not muslums, not part of his alignment, thus we can be treated as objects without any moral repracusions (in his mind), just as I can kill a bug, or eat a hamburger without feeling that I am doing anything wrong

Correct, but is it truly rational? When thinking hypothetically and with absolute logic, I don't see anything different between killing a bug and killing a human, but in practice, this ethical disease will take over me and prevent me from killing the human but not do anything for the bug. What kind of rationality is this?

emotions may not be or lead to a logical result but they have a logical perpose and origin

If they have a logical purpose, they must lead to a logical result by the rules of consistency. We know that they seldom do, so why must the purpose exist? As for the origin, I will agree there, but that isn't saying much for the topic at hand.

nothing, but they don't have to, that's evolution, my thoughts and the actions that I make as a result of them will have a direct result upon my liniages survival,
just as my parents were.

Your thoughts will not affect your successors, and your actions will only affect them if they are observing you.

You have your idea of right and wrong, I have mine. Neither can be proven. The problem is people trying to force theirs on others

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along, but people still insist that it is not so; anyway, when one group tries to force their ideas on others, the most brutal and least moral party will win, and I want to be on the winning side.

[Bobboau]

actualy, me and CP have had a long despute over the oregins of morality
were not aguing over what is right or wrong but rather the origens of the concept

[CP5670]

Anyway, I need to go sleep now since I have only had two hours of sleep last night and didn't sleep in the day, so see you again in a couple hours.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Bobboau
actualy, me and CP have had a long despute over the oregins of morality
were not aguing over what is right or wrong but rather the origens of the concept

Ah but that's where that last bit was headed, for me anyways o.O

[Bobboau]

"Because all other objectives are far more contradictory and logically inconsistent (including the survival of the species by itself), and we cannot do nothing."
why do we have to do anything then, why not just kill ourselves to keep from being an illogical inconsistancy

"Correct, but is it truly rational? When thinking hypothetically and with absolute logic, I don't see anything different between killing a bug and killing a human, but in practice, this ethical disease will take over me and prevent me from killing the human but not do anything for the bug. What kind of rationality is this? "
I never clamed it to be rational per se, I claimed it fit into the universal ethical system we all have,
it has a logical reson though,
to protect you're tribe, nation, clan, famely, religon,
from an outside tribe, nation, clan, famely, religon,

"If they have a logical purpose, they must lead to a logical result by the rules of consistency. We know that they seldom do, so why must the purpose exist? As for the origin, I will agree there, but that isn't saying much for the topic at hand."
they have alowed for the specise to survive

"Your thoughts will not affect your successors, and your actions will only affect them if they are observing you."
my thoughts are afected by the actions of my parents (and other members of my local socal groupe), my actions are afected by my thoughts, and  my childerens thoughts will be afected by my actions
also my thoughts and actions areaffected by my genetics wich are also to be sent on to my progeny

"This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along, but people still insist that it is not so; anyway, when one group tries to force their ideas on others, the most brutal and least moral party will win, and I want to be on the winning side."
so the Nazis won WW2

[Snakeseyes]

Originally posted by CP5670


We have been through all this already. A lion may not kill a newborn lion (actually even this is only restricted to his own cubs), but then why is it that a lion will kill anything else without hesitation? I wouldn't exactly call that ethical, but it helps him work towards his objective of survival. Same goes for humanity. (humanity, not humans) In fact, I am beginning to wonder if it may not be the morals themselves that will ultimately lead to the demise of forward progress in learning (particularly philosophy), since it is apparent from this thread that people are not easily able to think objectively on these issues. A disease it is indeed.

But a lion won't kill all of the pray in its territory. It can understand that that will make him starve in the future. Maybe as we advance and we get "out" of nature, we get more dumb. We like to believe that we rely on our basic insticts to survive, the instict to feed ourselves etc, but we try to satisfy them to the extreme. And as our wealth increases, our needs increase too, at least that's what we are thinking. Of course that only happens in the West World.

So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources, because if we won't it will take the shape of a snowfall.

Sorry if I make no sense, I haven't slept in a day and I can't think very well.

[Bobboau]

"But a lion won't kill all of the pray in its territory. It can understand that that will make him starve in the future."
it would if it could, and no it doesn't
don't know what you're point is in the rest of that paragraph

"So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources"
that sounds like you agree with CP

[Snakeseyes]

Originally posted by Blue Lion


Yes, because the North viewed slaves as people, the South did not. The South acted out of the best interests of its people, because they did not view slaves as people

So they both were wright?

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Snakeseyes


So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources, because if we won't it will take the shape of a snowfall.

Unfortunately, not everyone will agree on the same set, and that IS a fact. So, im my opinion anyway, we're better off without a universal set of morals simply because people will not agree and you'll cause more problems that way.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Snakeseyes


So they both were wright?

In their own eyes yes, you don't go to war over things you think are wrong.

[Snakeseyes]

Originally posted by Bobboau
"But a lion won't kill all of the pray in its territory. It can understand that that will make him starve in the future."
it would if it could, and no it doesn't
don't know what you're point is in the rest of that paragraph

I 'm too tired and my english sucks. I can't make you understand. Sorry.

"So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources"
that sounds like you agree with CP [/B]

I am refering only to the rich countries, overconsuming(sp?).

He is talking about the poor countries. Like birth control etc. etc.

[Snakeseyes]

Originally posted by Blue Lion


In their own eyes yes, you don't go to war over things you think are wrong.

No, no. What do you think? They were both wright?

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Snakeseyes


No, no. What do you think? They were both wright?

That's what I'm trying to tell you, it doesn't matter what I think. If you're asking if I thought the slaves were people, yes. If you're asking if I thought the South was right to go to war, the answer is yes also.