For me, a fucking moral is based on individuality. Trend set's the pace along with defining factors such as religion, sex, socio et al.

An example, poor it be in it's execution but I nay care.

Have you ever tried to tell a Zenulu that eating human flesh is unjust?

Have you ever tried to tell someone with an insatiable thirst for intimacy that sleeping around is wrong?

Have you ever tried to tell
(I like how the three have you ever tried to tell's look, all the same and shit, heh like triplets, anyway the above sentence continued below..)

a homosexual that Wentworth Miller is not infact a fine piece of tail?

The way I see it - moral standpoints differ so vastly we should cultivate our own whilst making sure acceptance is the order of the day, accepting people will think differently, what maybe taboo to you maybe common practice to another.

...

The way I see it - moral standpoints differ so vastly we should cultivate our own whilst making sure acceptance is the order of the day, accepting people will think differently, what maybe taboo to you maybe common practice to another.


Ooooh.. a moral relativist.

And yet.... supportive of an absolutist position based upon tolerance.

Hmmm... contradiction???

Ooooh.. a moral relativist.

And yet.... supportive of an absolutist position based upon tolerance.

Hmmm... contradiction???

*Walks*

The coin has two heads.

The basis of morality is consequence.

Immorality is that which attempts to deny consequence.

For me, a fucking moral is based on individuality. Trend set's the pace along with defining factors such as religion, sex, socio et al.

An example, poor it be in it's execution but I nay care.

Have you ever tried to tell a Zenulu that eating human flesh is unjust?


Yes, but it didn't take. In the end I was forced to club him to death with a stack of National Geographics. Ironically, it was the issue on New Guinea that dealt the death blow.

In unrelated matters, human flesh tastes kind of like veal.

=Centoundici642;1281342]

You could have just said, there is no universal objective morality. And that happens to be true...

For me, a fucking moral is based on individuality.

That may be true, but you still have to live and work with others who might not see your acts as moral. I.e., what you call "moral acts" might have consequences that your immediate fellows don't like or want, and they'll kick you out of the group or worse.

Man is not an island unto himself. (someone said that back in the old days?)

Baron Max

That may be true, but you still have to live and work with others who might not see your acts as moral. I.e., what you call "moral acts" might have consequences that your immediate fellows don't like or want, and they'll kick you out of the group or worse.

Man is not an island unto himself. (someone said that back in the old days?)

Baron Max

So where does one draw the line between compromising his own desires and compromising with others?

Don't take it the wrong way, I fully agree with you on this point.

So where does one draw the line between compromising his own desires and compromising with others?


...in the sand while the tide comes in.

We are punished by what we wish for, whatever it is.

Oooh...naughty...Idealism...

For me, a fucking moral is based on individuality. Trend set's the pace along with defining factors such as religion, sex, socio et al.

An example, poor it be in it's execution but I nay care.

Have you ever tried to tell a Zenulu that eating human flesh is unjust?

Have you ever tried to tell someone with an insatiable thirst for intimacy that sleeping around is wrong?

Have you ever tried to tell
(I like how the three have you ever tried to tell's look, all the same and shit, heh like triplets, anyway the above sentence continued below..)

a homosexual that Wentworth Miller is not infact a fine piece of tail?

The way I see it - moral standpoints differ so vastly we should cultivate our own whilst making sure acceptance is the order of the day, accepting people will think differently, what maybe taboo to you maybe common practice to another.


morality is needed to define laws of society, because morality is judicially sound action which society favors.

I think morality is a trait offering an evolutionary advantage...you scratch my back,etc.
As such morality is a guilt mechanism associated with co-operation.

Morality operates with or without the consciousness of guilt and prescribed codes of conduct. Those dedicated to ripping off everybody else end up unable to expect anything but the same in return. It is paid back by paranoia.

So where does one draw the line between compromising his own desires and compromising with others? Don't take it the wrong way, I fully agree with you on this point.

Ones own society draws the line for it's members.

And as you might well realize, the differences from one society to the next is what causes most, if not all, of the problems, conflicts and wars in the world of humans.

We use the term "society", but damned few of us can actually point it out in any physical sense. American society? Is Californians the same as New Yorkers or Texans? Nope! Not even the federal laws and rules make them the same!

So, no, it's not so simple to draw that line for everyone on Earth. And to make it worse, even in what one might term or think of as "society", there are sub-societies within it that always seem to resist the main society's laws and rules. Thus causing even more conflicts and problems.

Now ...with all that in mind, how can we then add into the mix a true sense of "individuality" without throwing the whole world into a tizzie?! Placing oneself above the ideals and morals of ones own society is the epitome of arrogance and ego.

Baron Max

Ones own society draws the line for it's members.

And as you might well realize, the differences from one society to the next is what causes most, if not all, of the problems, conflicts and wars in the world of humans.

We use the term "society", but damned few of us can actually point it out in any physical sense. American society? Is Californians the same as New Yorkers or Texans? Nope! Not even the federal laws and rules make them the same!

So, no, it's not so simple to draw that line for everyone on Earth. And to make it worse, even in what one might term or think of as "society", there are sub-societies within it that always seem to resist the main society's laws and rules. Thus causing even more conflicts and problems.

Now ...with all that in mind, how can we then add into the mix a true sense of "individuality" without throwing the whole world into a tizzie?! Placing oneself above the ideals and morals of ones own society is the epitome of arrogance and ego.

Baron Max

So, would you liken it to how we are able to predict a 'trend' in the movement of large groups of particles but when it comes to individuals it is too chaotic (or complex) for us to figure out?

It seems that the individual is swayed by his direct environment, or local society. And his local society is swayed by the region. And the region swayed by the country. And so on ad infinitum.

the title of this thread is ... immoral

amoral

amoral

well oopsy.

Do or do not; either way you change the world. For better or worse? Well ... some of the biggest killers on this planet thought they were making the best changes. Ouch.

Incidentally, if someone were so wise that they always made the (objectively) best choice, would they still have free will?

Do or do not; either way you change the world. For better or worse? Well ... some of the biggest killers on this planet thought they were making the best changes. Ouch.

Incidentally, if someone were so wise that they always made the (objectively) best choice, would they still have free will?

thats what the evil vs good is all about. Yes humans can be programmed to either be destined to commit good or to commit evil...but that would take away their free will. Thus a way to come to be good or to be evil is to let humans use their free will to form logical decisions or best choices...and still having free will.

So, would you liken it to how we are able to predict a 'trend' in the movement of large groups of particles but when it comes to individuals it is too chaotic (or complex) for us to figure out?

Yeah, sorta'. But I think the term "firgure out" is somewhat misleading, since even as we're "figuring it out", the individual's morality is changing.

It seems that the individual is swayed by his direct environment, or local society. And his local society is swayed by the region. And the region swayed by the country. And so on ad infinitum.

In the old days, an individual's morality was, in fact, a product of his LOCAL environment and LOCAL society. That's not actually true in today's world other than third world nations.

Now an individual has tv and the Internet which gives him some connection, even if cursorily, to societies and other environments that he would never, ever have experienced before.

The latter part of that statement is ....well, pretty complex! And I'm gonna' have to do some serious thinking about it. I'm not sure who or what does the "swaying" in those examples/scenarios ...or how to figure it out.

Just a thought ...some individual designer in Paris might be the cause of changing fashions over much of the modern world. So, see, the influence isn't always so easy to figure out, or which direction it's going or coming from. And it's made worse, I think, by tv and movies and the Internet.

Back in the old days, 1700s and 1800s, a society was essentially isolated, and so the morality tended to be more isolated and more consistent, too. With the speed of communications, that isolation was lost, and the influences began to have an effect ...good or bad or both!

Baron Max

Spot on Baron - morality was more of a variable prior to the shrinking of space and time - now its going universal.

Yeah, sorta'. But I think the term "firgure out" is somewhat misleading, since even as we're "figuring it out", the individual's morality is changing.
Yes, exactly. I guess I didn't know precisely how to put it, but that is exactly what I meant.

In the old days, an individual's morality was, in fact, a product of his LOCAL environment and LOCAL society. That's not actually true in today's world other than third world nations.

Now an individual has tv and the Internet which gives him some connection, even if cursorily, to societies and other environments that he would never, ever have experienced before.

The latter part of that statement is ....well, pretty complex! And I'm gonna' have to do some serious thinking about it. I'm not sure who or what does the "swaying" in those examples/scenarios ...or how to figure it out.

Just a thought ...some individual designer in Paris might be the cause of changing fashions over much of the modern world. So, see, the influence isn't always so easy to figure out, or which direction it's going or coming from. And it's made worse, I think, by tv and movies and the Internet.

Back in the old days, 1700s and 1800s, a society was essentially isolated, and so the morality tended to be more isolated and more consistent, too. With the speed of communications, that isolation was lost, and the influences began to have an effect ...good or bad or both!

Baron Max

Yes, I agree. Morality (which I view hand in hand with culture) has always been diverse from population to population, ranging all over the world in different climates and environments. But now technology connects [most of] us all so easily, these widely varying morals are exposed to people everywhere.

Bah... too many variables, too little personal computing power.

Morality is becoming less a matter of free will and more an attribute of technological determinism. Obey or the machines will know....they are surveilling you...

Morality is becoming less a matter of free will and more an attribute of technological determinism. Obey or the machines will know....they are surveilling you...

Dear zenbabelfish,

Your statement is not in line with current objectively determined ranges of acceptable human response. We therefore must inform you that you are scheduled for deletion. Please do not resist, or inform others that "the machines are surveilling you". We are, of course, not surveilling you.

Have a nice day until your deletion.

Sincerely

The Machines

I live in a country with the highest number of surveillance cameras per person in the world; also microphones are being placed with the cameras. Also lamp posts that can 'X-ray' pedestrians are to be installed.
Our email and phone conversations are monitored using keywords and semantic network software. Large amounts of personal data held by public and private organizations are to be centralised in a computer network.

Add in a bit of 'psychohistory' and...mm, wait a sec...someone at the door....be back in a minute...

You're only making it worse for y'self, you know!

Sincerely

Harmless Dolphins
(Not The Machines)

I don't think I'm saying anything that hasn't been published in Judge Dread or a William Gibson novel.

I'm just an anthropologist observing machine-human symbiosis...

And the authors mysteriously dissappeared as I recall.

William Gibson?

They're next. Can you provide details of this "Judge Dread"? He does not appear on our rosters of current legal figures in Britain and no address appears to be available.

Sincerely

Cute, Harmless Dolphins

What was that about teh X-ray thing? Is that serious?

I think the moral of this is that its better disappear up ones own a*#e than wait until the machines do it...bye.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nxray129.xml