Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Taverner Morality and EthicsI have come to the conclusion that morality is a false flag, a canard and utterly useless.NOOOOOOO! Say it isn't so, that a drug addicted, unemployed, absentee father poonhound rejects morality! Morality is a sliding ruler by which to measure right and wrong, which changes arbitrarily based on policies set in some cases thousands of years ago. For liberals, maybe.When I hear something is "immoral" I hear sanctimoniousness, judgement and a lack of reason. For the record, morality does not come from reason. Nietzsche argued that all morality comes from fear - and I think he's onto something.Unless a liberal says it's immoral. Or your drug dealer."Whoa whoa whoa! Are you saying there is no right and wrong?" you ask.Not at all: what you do is right, and what everyone else does is wrong. Crystal clear.Nothing of the sort: in fact I think there is a definite right and wrong - and unlike morality it is based on reason and empathy. I am talking about ethics. Ethics ask you to put yourself in that other person's shoes, take a look around, and then make your decision.You cannot put yourself in the shoes of anyone other than (ironically) people who barely have shoes in the first place. People who work, support families, and take care of their kids are above your criticism.Let's take an example: something that one would think is clear: prostitution. Morals would state that being a prostitute is bad. Ethics, on the other hand, do not set things in such stone. If you are a prostitute, you are choosing certain risks. Now, these risks may endanger your life or your health - but that has nothing to do with right and wrong, but more to do with taking care of yourself. You provide a service in exchange for money - no different than house cleaning, giving a massage or doing someone's taxes.Can't wait for the dykes of DU to get their hooks into you!Yes, there is the possible ethical dilemma of whether you are helping someone (your john) to cheat on his or her wife. However, this does not enter the equation during the business transaction, and the ethical dilemma belongs to the john, not the CSW. They have the responsibility to behave ethically to their significant other. If that person's partner is OK with seeing a CSW, no harm no foul.So in other words, you're a libertarian. Your ethics are self-serving. Let me ask you: how do you feel about Ayn Rand?Morality, on the other hand, is completely arbitrary. It is immoral to drink alcohol if you are a Muslim. It is immoral to eat pork if you are Jewish. It is immoral to masturbate if you are Catholic, and so on. None of these actions does any harm (although the vegetarian ethical dilemma, comes into play.)Um, yeah...a druggie telling me what's moral. Riiight.Your thoughts?You're a dick with ears.
OK, he is always mixing up the words "ethical" with "empathy." He did it in reference to his son once, and I thought it was a typo. A very stupid error. OK, now for the guessing game. Given this post, what substance is he on?My vote: Heroin.
Sarah Ibarruri15. It's complicated! There's no doubt that everyone has their own ideas of what's rightand wrong, although most of us agree on the larger rights and wrongs. I don't know which term means what (ethics and morality), but I do think that people mostly disagree on the minutiae of what is right and wrong. In the larger sense (Nazis killing millions, for example; or Mother Teresa collecting sick, hungry and dying from the streets and caring for them) most people would find concensus.
I think that if you took polls, most of us could point out who are good people and who are bad people, what are kind, good acts and what are unkind. Most people would choose one over the other, and by an overwhelming majority, too. Definitely human beings have a general notion of right and wrong.
I think a very important issue involved in this is degree of intrusion. In any case, Libertarians (uh oh, I'm about to ramble!), for example, are not intrusive (at least as long as it doesn't involve their money - when it involves money, they're very intrusive in that they want legislation to support corporations and the wealthy, but that's a whole nother story). However, they would look at prostitutes and say it's their prerogative to be prostitutes or get out of prostitution, without engaging in more complex decision-making than that. I think that sometimes doing good involves being intrusive. I don't believe that people making a conscious decision to do things that are to their detriment should always be allowed to carry on. You gave the example of prostitution. Prostitution is detrimental to one's self-perception. That might not be evident because our exterior and our behavior often belies what goes on inside. If a prostitute tells you she/he is doing fine, do you simply take it at her/his word, or do you look for signs of deterioration of the person's well being? Or signs that the person got into it in the first place because they were not emotionally healthy to begin with? I think goodness involves studying other aspects of others, not merely listening to the words that are verbalized. That might appear intrusive, to go by other signs other than those which the person in question wishes us to hear or know. Intrusiveness, which is involved in doing good for others, can also be used to do harm. For example, Christians that think they can "convert" gays to being non-gay. Anyway, sorry, enough rambling for today!
When I hear something is "immoral" I hear sanctimoniousness, judgement and a lack of reason. For the record, morality does not come from reason. Nietzsche argued that all morality comes from fear - and I think he's onto something.
I dunno, it's kind of long and with horse I would have thought he'd have passed out about 2/3 of the way through. I'm thinking a moderately strong psychotropic of some sort, though it seems to unmellow to be weed. Or possibly a drug cocktail, probably of multiple prescription drugs.
In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use.... "The situation we're creating for young people and future generations is that we're handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control," he said. "We're in an emergency: you can see what's on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction."...Hansen will argue in his lecture that current generations have an over-riding moral duty to their children and grandchildren to take immediate action...
Of COURSE he says there's no such thing as morality. Otherwise, how could libs justify abortion?
I always find it amusing when baby-killers try to talk to me about morality.
