what topics do you think everyone, or at least everyone here in the ethics forum, can agree on?

Hell we can't even all agree to disagree.

As usual Mystech is lieing. I fully agree to dissagree.

Originally posted by Mystech
. . . we can't even all agree . . .
The "all" implies that an indeterminate number of individuals can, indeed, agree to disagree, SpyMoose.
Now what exactly is this "lieing" you mentioned?

SwedishFish

Ethics, Morality, & Justice

are all based on philisophical base constructs

hence i ask
are you speaking purely ethicly or more on a topic based idea
like a thread topic

groove on :)

i guess what i mean is....topics? i think. we all agree that forcing employees to wear diapers to avoid bathroom breaks is a bad thing. what else can we agree on? i suppose it's universal that raping kids is bad.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
i suppose it's universal that raping kids is bad.
I'm guessing some pedofiles would probably disagree.

would all pedophiles on the board please come forward so we can give them a good shaming

lets not twist the tread into a hate box of ranting

thnks SwedishFish
i find the violence issue one of the most perplexing as you refer to children the smacking debate comes to the surface
on the issue of those doing the smacking think it is NOT OK
if THEY THEMSELFS are SMAKED for the same or other offences.

so on a base of violence it would be fair to say that most of the population think violence is ok and being a hypocrite and bully is also ok
they only object if it is them that is being hit or bullyed

so let us not hang too long on the violence issue
rape is a crime of violence regardless of what the age of the victim
one could easily debate that because of the hypocracy of those who believe smaking thier kids is ok and then think they as adults should not be smaked says that by their definition they think child rape is less of a crime than rape of an adult

as above in conclusion to violence
it is learned behaviour lets hope the parents and educators can teach better as they learn more

another issue would be?
equal rights is the same as above

so whats left
umm any thoughts anyone

groove on :)

i can't get into a pedophile's head but i would imagine that even they do not think what they are doing is right. perhaps they have remorse but can't stop themselves. like that guy who begged the court to have him castrated because once he was released, he'd keep doing it.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
what topics do you think everyone, or at least everyone here in the ethics forum, can agree on?

I think we can all agree on the ten commandments, maybe at least the last seven of them for the Atheists among us.

1- I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

2- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

3- Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.

4- Honor thy Father and thy Mother

5- Thou shalt not kill.

6- Thou shalt not commit adultery.

7- Thou shalt not steal.

8- Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

9- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

10 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.

Originally posted by Flores
I think we can all agree on the ten commandments, maybe at least the last seven of them for the Atheists among us.
Thats rather presumptuous.
I can tell you right now that I don't agree with any of them at all. And thats the truth.
I honour thy father and thy mother. But what i am refferring to with that would be the sun and the earth, which I worship like gods, so with that I am disobeying the first commandment right?

I hate the ten commandments, they conflict with my lifestyle and beliefs to such a degree that its almost like they are out to get me personally.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I hate the ten commandments, they conflict with my lifestyle and beliefs to such a degree that its almost like they are out to get me personally.

Why Dr. Lou, Is your lifestyle full of

1- Killing
2- Stealing
3- Commiting Adultery
4- Bearing false witness
5- Covetting your neighbors goods.
6- Sleeping with your neighbor wife.
7- Dishonoring your father and mother.

I see that you must agree with at least those seven, or I will worry about you. And how do you know that it's not nature that it's talking and saying I'm god worship me.

Originally posted by Flores
I think we can all agree on the ten commandments, maybe at least the last seven of them for the Atheists among us.

Well just to be contrary. . .

Originally posted by Flores
1- I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

Well if he wants me to think that, then he can come down and tell me himself and then give me some good reason for why I should bother worshiping his ass. Until then I'd much rather hold no God at all, it makes a lot more sence.

Originally posted by Flores
2- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

I'll take the first amendment over this any day. We aren't allowed to criticize our leaders now? What kind of shoddy operation is God running down here, anyway?

Originally posted by Flores
3- Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.

This one has always seemed a bit odd to me. Those hebrews must have really liked their weekends.

Originally posted by Flores
4- Honor thy Father and thy Mother

Unfortunately being a parent isn't sufficient grounds for respect. I've seen a lot of people who would have been better off if they'd stop forgiving deadbeat family members every time they screw 'em over. Just because you were born to them doesn't mean you have to be blind to their wrong doings if they happen to be horrible people.

No complaints on the last 6, though.

I steal everytime I load the ol' psp client.

I kill everytime I wash my hands.

and yeah I want my neigbors shit and his wife.

Well "though shall not kill" is kid of impractical if you take it too literally. I always guess I sort of took it to mean that you shouldn't kill fellow human beings, which seems pretty reasonable to me.

It is, however, a cold fact of our particular troposphere (energy comes from the sun, it is collected and stored as glucose by photosynthetic plants, herbivores eat those plants, carnivores eat the herbivores, and a higher level of carnivore eats those other carnivores. At each level more and more of that original energy from the sun is used up, and there is less and less of it at each level. Humans, being omnivores span the troposphere, but still are completely unable to collect energy directly from the sun) that we must kill to survive, killing is the only thing that can keep us alive and there isn't a hell of a lot that we can do about that.

and in that sense "though shall not kill" is kind of impractical.

I haven't killed anyone... yet.
But I don't think it is naturally bad. I learn whats right by looking at the animals and you'll find that apex predators have to kill members of their own species due to competition, if nothing preys on them they have to kill eachother to keep their population in check. It doesn't get much more apex than humans and competition doesn't get much more tight than it is for us now.
For example, Japan is taking so many fish and other wierd animals out of the ocean that if it continues at this rate their won't be any fish for anyone(or any thing) very soon.
I would not be against a war over such a thing, it would be a natural activity for a globe dominating species to partake in. Good healthy competition. A lion will kill a lion from somewhere else if it comes into its territory and eats buffaloe. Chimpanzee's will do the same if a stranger chimpanzee is in their territory. Most animals will.
I refuse to believe lions and chimps and hyenas etc etc are "wrong". If theres a right it would be common and consistent in nature, this is, so what humans are doing when they allow other humans to diminish food stocks is actually wrong. Not killing in that scenario is wrong IMOTIBOTRW(In my opinion that I based on the real world)
I guess at this stage it is impractical to kill people just because you don't know them, but the original human families that joined forces with stranger human families to form primitive societies were "sinful" in a way, by not killing. Dolphins "sin" every now and then by joining forces with strangers to avoid killer whale attack but thats as far as they got. They learned a long time ago that hanging around in large non-family specific groups, though safer from predators, is a breeding ground for disease so they never stay together for long.
Humans just took the diseases on the chin for thousands of years untill they eventually figured out how to fight against them.
Call me crazy, but I think diseases are quite obviously nature telling us we're doing something wrong. Joining forces and getting an unfair advantage is "wrong", so nature rights it with disease.

There's alot of "neighbour" talk in the ten commandments.
I don't think they are made up arbitrary crap like most atheists, I think they're distinctively evil. They directly contradict nature, who I hold in a pretty high regard. And for that reason flores, I find it impossible to think the god in the quaran/bible etc is nature. If I had to believe in that god I would say he was natures opponent, and he skewed natures most potentially destructive creation with his evil commandments to start a war against the earth. A war we are all taking part in.
Its not one sided, nature's fighting back with diseases and natural "disasters", she made the skin of the most dangerous light so her boyfriend could burn us etc:p but the evil commandment maker's soldiers do have the upper hand at the moment:(
What if you were tricked like this flores? Maybe the quaran is real, a real complex trick. It feeds our ego's and promises us eternal life to make us do its dirty bidding. If gods so smart, who says he couldn't trick measly humans into thinking he was good when in reality he was bad?

I had to write all this to describe my anti-10commandments stance. It's not that it conflicts with my lifestyle, that was a joke, its that if you look at it from earths point of view they are actually subtle evil instructions telling her children to attack her viciously. Its a cosmic conspiracy that I'm not going to fall for.
No I'm not on drugs.... at the mo...

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I refuse to believe lions and chimps and hyenas etc etc are "wrong".

So quit bothering us here on the internet. Go tare your clothes off, live in the wilderness, and eat your young.

At what point did Dr Lou turn into an eco terrorist? Is this just a recent development or had I just been missing it up until now?

Oh I've always been one.
I back off every few weeks to let the dust settle.
Ask around, I go on about this stuff quite often, I've just been on a break so as to not send human-fans into violent cyber-rages.

And we all have our subjects that we feel strongly about mystech.
I'd be a pretty petty individual if the next time you were voicing your opinions on gay rights I said "So quit bothering us on the internet and go fuck a dude" wouldn't I?
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I'd be a pretty petty individual if the next time you were voicing your opinions on gay rights I said "So quit bothering us on the internet and go fuck a dude" wouldn't I?
:rolleyes:

Yes, but the difference is that I'm not completely insane.

While I agree that Dr Lou is nuts, some of his ideas I agree with.

We are creations of nature. It makes sense that our ethical views lean in the same direction. None of the things listed so far are in themselves 'wrong'. The list was just made by somebody thinking "hey, this is usually wrong". I believe the only true way to act is to do what is best for you. This is perfectly viable if you realize that being selfish is not always 'best for you', and feeling guilty is also not 'best'. It relies on our communal nature to keep us from being pricks.

1- I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
um, no.

2- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
goddamnit i'll take whatever the hell i want in vain. jesus!

3- Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
yeeah, some of us have stuff to do

4- Honor thy Father and thy Mother
there are some pretty lousy parents out there who are the last to be deserving respect. father's day is a masquerade at my house. i hand my dad a card and say "congratulations on having sperm! you knocked my mom up, way to go dad!"

5- Thou shalt not kill.
self-defense? defending someone else? accident?? eating meat, wearing leather/fur

6- Thou shalt not commit adultery.
i definitely don't agree with it but who are we to say what other people should do? perhaps a married woman is in an abusive relationship and simply cannot get out of it without ending up dead and there is some guy who makes her happy and feel like she's worth more than a punching bag.

7- Thou shalt not steal.
this one is fuzzy.
there are some cases when my conscience says it's ok to steal. off the top of my head, police collecting evidence are taking things that don't belong to them. grabbing a couple extra sugar packets in a restaurant doesn't seem like a hell worthy offense either.

8- Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
sometimes, it may be better to lie. while i prefer honesty at all times, lying to protect someone is not a bad thing. imagine: intruders break into your house, find you inside and demand that you tell them where your kids are. they are playing in a back bedroom but you lie and say they're downstairs to give them a chance to get away. is your god going to strike you down now?

9- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
unless you're a buddhist, coveting is not such a terrible thing.

10 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
ditto

I believe we can agree n that fact that Utter destruction of the Earth is a no no.....and by utter i mean swift and fast by means such as a asteroid.

But wait...leave it to a martyar to disagree on that.

The answer is that we can't agree of any subject...not fully agree anyway.

Maybe this needs to be changed a bit. Do we all agree on something, assuming we have logic to backup our belief?

We can all agree that there is no way to change the past or even the passing moments and seconds and thus we have to accept the past for a fact, and we have no way to know precisely without resolving to forcasting what the future holds. So we agree that the future is unknown to a greater degree.

In a sense that makes that agree on almost everything but the spontantanous short speed of sound time that we are actually in control over what we do.

Am I mistaken or back on page 1 did Dr Lou tell us that we should all pee on the ground and kill anyone who gets too near, and no one had anything to say about that...

He didnt even say that about humans specificly, he seemed to implicate the entire animal kingdom. This is really an interesting type of insanity, im getting tired of getting religious arguments that make no sence tossed around, lets hear some more of Dr Lou's quasi-naturalist arguments that make no sence!

types of languages
types of mathamatical systems
genral laws of conduct of interactive behaviour between people on a physical level
a small amount of laws relating to verbal interaction between people
a shared genralised construct of the most desirable family unit
a form of barta

all these things we agree on are social laws that are contradicted by big business
but they are what the majority of people and even those people who break them while operating their big businesses expect to be used as a guide to the norm of interaction

which of course highlights the biggest accepted agreeable thing
hypacracy

a common sociatal disorder which remains regardless of what religion race ethnicity nationality culture
there a few rare exceptions

groove on :)

haha ok. you win that one. i meant issues we can agree on but i'll take it because you found something we actually do agree on.

- it is right to help a child in need
- it is wrong to torture people
- it is wrong to kill people
- it is wrong to disrespect other human beings
- it is wrong to be unfair
- it is wrong to be unkind
- it is wrong to be mean
- it is right to offer each other emotional support
- it is right too respect each other's independence and views

you really believe that? it must be swell in lala land.

it is wrong to torture people

Wrong. Fred Durst. It would be very right to publically strip his skin from his body with broken cds.
What about masochists? As Anton LaVey quipped, it'd be cruel to deny them.
What if you were in a situation where you needed information to save, say, millions of lives, and the only way to get an informant to talk was by torturing them?

it is wrong to kill people

What if you could kill Hitler before he came to power?

it is wrong to disrespect other human beings

Then the concept of respect is moot.

it is wrong to be unkind

Kindergarten ideology should have died with the Nazarene.

it is wrong to be mean

Why? Meanness adds piquancy to interaction.

it is right to offer each other emotional support

Why? The weak would be best served if they weren't coddled.

it is right too respect each other's independence and views

If it's wrong to disrespect any view, how can you respect any view?

***Off Topic****

Xev...Fred Durst didn't put out "Hybrid theory"..Linkin Park did

I hereby authorize anyone interested to shoot me if I ever pay enough attention to that genre to not confuse albums.

Thanks sargentlard. :)

*snickers*...consider it done.

swedish fish i really believe it. I act on it.

xev, amny of your counter examples rely on exceptional circumstances. I am quite happy to add another thing we agre eon to the list. Ocassionally extreme circumstances require extreme responses for survival, but hey shpould be chosen very carefully as the general rights are right.

piquancy isnt an argument for meanness. being kindergarten d=satndard isnt a reason to oppose being kind to people.

One can respect another person without practcicng disrespect to some others. Even if the concept of rspect was dependent on the concept of disresect that wouldnt mean ione had to perform both actions in order to be able to be meaningfully respectful.

the topic is things we agree on. it's not that i don't think it's nice that you act on it, but you'd have to be living in a pleasantville bubble to think they are universally agreed upon. or even agreed upon in this forum alone.

sometimes being mean is how stupid people know they're stupid. just kidding. sort of.

ele:
Please, could you make an effort to spell correctly? I don't mean "write perfect, college level English", but comprehensibility would be nice.

One can respect another person without practcicng disrespect to some others. Even if the concept of rspect was dependent on the concept of disresect that wouldnt mean ione had to perform both actions in order to be able to be meaningfully respectful.

As Socrates pointed out, our ability to comprehend a thing requires that we comprehend that that thing might not-be.
Respect is granted when a person meets a set of standards. If nobody met those standards, or everybody met those standards, judgement and respect would not be possible.
Thus, by respecting someone we judge. And if they are worthy, it follows that some will not be worthy. Men are not equal.
Thus, respecting some entails that we not respect others.