Morals

[GoldenRaz]

Just the "Golden Rule":
Do to others what you want them to do to you.

Gets me by, and if more would live by it, then I think that there would be a whole lot less douchebaggery.

I hate that rule.

Why not just, "respect other people - or at least pretend to be a reasonable adult"? That'll keep the masochists from whipping me...

Well, since I want people to respect me and at least pretend to be reasonable adults, then that's what I'll do. According to the "golden rule", then people would do me the same favour.
If you for some reason would want the masochists to whip you, then you would do that to them. If you do not, then they wouldn't do it to you.

 

[El Poncho]

Depends in the situation but I have pretty good morals.

 

[Agent Larkin]

Free speech for all. Thats it really.

 

[Uncompetative]

I have no morals and no beliefs.

However, I think these principles are generally a good idea:

Good Manners.
Tolerance.
Avoidance

Apply them in roughly that order to interpersonal relationships. I have found from experience that it makes Life easier.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Just the "Golden Rule":
Do to others what you want them to do to you.

Gets me by, and if more would live by it, then I think that there would be a whole lot less douchebaggery.

I hate that rule.

Why not just, "respect other people - or at least pretend to be a reasonable adult"? That'll keep the masochists from whipping me...

Well, since I want people to respect me and at least pretend to be reasonable adults, then that's what I'll do. According to the "golden rule", then people would do me the same favour.
If you for some reason would want the masochists to whip you, then you would do that to them. If you do not, then they wouldn't do it to you.

Nope. If the golden rule is "treat others the way you would want to be treated," that means that a masochist, following that rule, should inflict pain unto others because that's how he would want to be treated. Now, that's an extreme example, not a serious one, but it reveals a flaw in the golden rule: Not everyone should be treated the way I want to be treated. We're all different people with different wants and needs.

There's a difference between people with equality and equity. It's why playing colorblind doesn't solve racial poverty, and why some people can wear ceremonial headgear even when "no hats are aloud." Sometimes we need to consider what other people need, not just ourselves.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

((rolls eyes)) ahh i see. you are an intelligent sophisticate that cant grasp a warriors mentality. which begs me the question: "what the fuck are you doing on a gaming site?"
if you bothered to actually read any of the aforementioned texts instead of slinging your ego around, you would have noticed the common thread: That the strong, physically, mentally, and socially, have an OBLIGATION to the weak. I was given my strength for a reason, whether by God or Fate.

If you're a warrior, why the fuck are you on a gaming site? I think the Escapist favors people who can think, rather than the refus that bash eachothers brains out with sticks.

Warriors are just told they're noble, so they don't question why they're fighting. For that same reason, they throw rocks at people who can think.

I hope you make your vassal proud.

If these two had a baby they might make a normal human being.

Magnuslion - A warrior code isnt a moral guidebook its a pattern of behaviour IN BATTLE. The code of Bushido is a philosophical concept that does have 7 virtues but most can be surmarised down into 3. Also the Bushido code is for Japanese people and is irrelevant in todays society. External observers might see your comments as macho posturing possibly as a downside of testosterone injections.

ThrobbingEgo - Yes all soldiers are idiots. Everyone on the Escapist is high brow intellectuals. Warriors are told their noble just to placate them and no soldier has ever done anything noble at all ever. ¬.¬

p.s. Dear god help me my eyes have rolled back into my skull 720 degrees and I can now see T I M E ! ...... cool.

Did you not read the post I was replying to? The dude's calling himself a warrior. Not a soldier, a warrior. Says he follows warrior's codes as his day-to-day morality. There's a difference between defending your country when you need to protect your freedoms and prancing around like He-Man.

I'll agree that, in that post, I overplayed the whole "warriors are the pawns of the elite" thing but it's essentially true. Hell, it's doubly true in feudal Japan where the Bushido code was written. I mean, we're talking about dragging people around by their "honor" to the point where they're willing to kill themselves for failure. That's... that's a scary thing, is it not? The purpose of the Bushido code is pretty damn clear.

Usually when I say something ridiculous that means I'm responding to something of equal or greater stupidity.

 

[goatzilla8463]

Morals are like shackles. They bind you.

 

[dontworryaboutit]

I wonder if Alan Moore is trying to make a point.

Alan Moore make a point? *GASP!*

Yeah, that sounds like something he might do.

Good find.

Edit: Wait, Percy Shelly... that's Mary Shelly's husband, right? The one who ran the novel writing contest that she won? (With Frankenstein.)

Aye aye captain. Frankenstein remains of the greatest books I have ever read.

Human rights above all else.

So you strive to not be a war criminal? Ambitious.

Anything for a more day-to-day scenario?

This made me lol.

Also, bushido is fuckign stupid. Am I the only one here aware that it caused the Japanese to do fucked up shit during WWII? Warriors are fucking stupid.

"I don't like warriors. Too narrow-minded, no subtlety. And worse, they fight for hopeless causes. Honor? Huh! Honor's killed millions of people, it hasn't saved a single one."

 

[ElephantGuts]

Well I don't want to turn this thread into this kind of argument, and you do make a valid point, but if animals can decide to have sex with each other, why can't they decide to have sex with humans?

And there are plenty of ways to tell whether or not an animal does consent to sexual activity. If your argument is that the animal is incapable of making an informed decision, wouldn't that also mean they aren't capable of deciding to have sex with animals of their own species?

And your last sentence confuses me. What are you saying would be "considered severely retarded if it were human"?

Put a dog's brain in an otherwise human body. It'd be, by human standards, severely retarded. I think we can agree that it's wrong to use someone who's severely mentally disadvantaged for the purpose of your own sexual pleasure. Same reason you don't have sexual intercourse with children.

Animals having sex with other animals is fine because it's not being coerced by something that is, by comparison, disproportionately more intelligent and powerful. A healthy dog's not disadvantaged in comparison to other healthy dogs.

I don't see how the animal's intelligence equates to a disadvantage. A human coming on to a dog doesn't have to be any different than a dog coming on to a dog. And what if it's the dog that first shows interest, and the person just goes along with it?

 

[Rorschach II]

This is gonna sound weird...

But I don't believe in charities that are set up in Africa etc.

This is because I don't actually know where it goes. I believe in giving people something when they are in need.

This is only one, I have loads because Im a Buddhist. If I don't have certain morals then it would kinda defeat the point...

Also I don't drink or smoke.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Well I don't want to turn this thread into this kind of argument, and you do make a valid point, but if animals can decide to have sex with each other, why can't they decide to have sex with humans?

And there are plenty of ways to tell whether or not an animal does consent to sexual activity. If your argument is that the animal is incapable of making an informed decision, wouldn't that also mean they aren't capable of deciding to have sex with animals of their own species?

And your last sentence confuses me. What are you saying would be "considered severely retarded if it were human"?

Put a dog's brain in an otherwise human body. It'd be, by human standards, severely retarded. I think we can agree that it's wrong to use someone who's severely mentally disadvantaged for the purpose of your own sexual pleasure. Same reason you don't have sexual intercourse with children.

Animals having sex with other animals is fine because it's not being coerced by something that is, by comparison, disproportionately more intelligent and powerful. A healthy dog's not disadvantaged in comparison to other healthy dogs.

I don't see how the animal's intelligence equates to a disadvantage. A human coming on to a dog doesn't have to be any different than a dog coming on to a dog. And what if it's the dog that first shows interest, and the person just goes along with it?

If it were true that an animal's intelligence didn't matter, it'd be okay to use children and the severely mentally disadvantaged for sexual pleasure. Just because a kid comes onto you, doesn't mean it's okay.

 

[GoldenRaz]

Just the "Golden Rule":
Do to others what you want them to do to you.

Gets me by, and if more would live by it, then I think that there would be a whole lot less douchebaggery.

I hate that rule.

Why not just, "respect other people - or at least pretend to be a reasonable adult"? That'll keep the masochists from whipping me...

Well, since I want people to respect me and at least pretend to be reasonable adults, then that's what I'll do. According to the "golden rule", then people would do me the same favour.
If you for some reason would want the masochists to whip you, then you would do that to them. If you do not, then they wouldn't do it to you.

Nope. If the golden rule is "treat others the way you would want to be treated," that means that a masochist, following that rule, should inflict pain unto others because that's how he would want to be treated. Now, that's an extreme example, not a serious one, but it reveals a flaw in the golden rule: Not everyone should be treated the way I want to be treated. We're all different people with different wants and needs.

There's a difference between people with equality and equity. It's why playing colorblind doesn't solve racial poverty, and why some people can wear ceremonial headgear even when "no hats are aloud." Sometimes we need to consider what other people need, not just ourselves.

I see what you mean, it is quite a flawed rule of thumb. But it works for me, so I'll keep it anyway.

And just to further this debate: "respect other people - or at least pretend to be a reasonable adult" is flawed in the same way in my opinion; the definitions of "respect" and "reasonable" is different from person to person and that could lead to similar occurences.

Some people have no problem with people swearing, others find it disrespectful.
Masochists find it reasonable to inflict pain to achieve pleasure, others consider it madness.

I'm not saying that it is a bad or stupid moral code, just flawed in the same way that the "golden rule" is which means that it can't be a universal standard.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

And just to further this debate: "respect other people - or at least pretend to be a reasonable adult" is flawed in the same way in my opinion; the definitions of "respect" and "reasonable" is different from person to person and that could lead to similar occurences.

Some people have no problem with people swearing, others find it disrespectful.
Masochists find it reasonable to inflict pain to achieve pleasure, others consider it madness.

I'm not saying that it is a bad or stupid moral code, just flawed in the same way that the "golden rule" is which means that it can't be a universal standard.

There might be discrepencies about how far you go with respect and reasonable, but I can't think of a masochist scenario for it. I think the potential for total subversion is more troubling than slight variance.

Also, masochists get pleasure by receiving pain, not inflicting it - and weird as it is, it's a reasonable fetish to have.

How about, "consider other people's needs"? The golden rule is just empathy putting on airs, this is more direct.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Well I don't want to turn this thread into this kind of argument, and you do make a valid point, but if animals can decide to have sex with each other, why can't they decide to have sex with humans?

And there are plenty of ways to tell whether or not an animal does consent to sexual activity. If your argument is that the animal is incapable of making an informed decision, wouldn't that also mean they aren't capable of deciding to have sex with animals of their own species?

And your last sentence confuses me. What are you saying would be "considered severely retarded if it were human"?

Put a dog's brain in an otherwise human body. It'd be, by human standards, severely retarded. I think we can agree that it's wrong to use someone who's severely mentally disadvantaged for the purpose of your own sexual pleasure. Same reason you don't have sexual intercourse with children.

Animals having sex with other animals is fine because it's not being coerced by something that is, by comparison, disproportionately more intelligent and powerful. A healthy dog's not disadvantaged in comparison to other healthy dogs.

I don't see how the animal's intelligence equates to a disadvantage. A human coming on to a dog doesn't have to be any different than a dog coming on to a dog. And what if it's the dog that first shows interest, and the person just goes along with it?

If it were true that an animal's intelligence didn't matter, it'd be okay to use children and the severely mentally disadvantaged for sexual pleasure. Just because a kid comes onto you, doesn't mean it's okay.

There's a big difference there. Dogs do have sex regularly, it's natural and necessary for the survival of their species. We know they can have sex without any sort of damage, mental or physical.

This is opposed to children or mentally disabled people having sex, where it is not natural and there are clear reasons why it is a bad idea.

 

[VitalSigns]

Well I don't want to turn this thread into this kind of argument, and you do make a valid point, but if animals can decide to have sex with each other, why can't they decide to have sex with humans?

And there are plenty of ways to tell whether or not an animal does consent to sexual activity. If your argument is that the animal is incapable of making an informed decision, wouldn't that also mean they aren't capable of deciding to have sex with animals of their own species?

And your last sentence confuses me. What are you saying would be "considered severely retarded if it were human"?

Put a dog's brain in an otherwise human body. It'd be, by human standards, severely retarded. I think we can agree that it's wrong to use someone who's severely mentally disadvantaged for the purpose of your own sexual pleasure. Same reason you don't have sexual intercourse with children.

Animals having sex with other animals is fine because it's not being coerced by something that is, by comparison, disproportionately more intelligent and powerful. A healthy dog's not disadvantaged in comparison to other healthy dogs.

I don't see how the animal's intelligence equates to a disadvantage. A human coming on to a dog doesn't have to be any different than a dog coming on to a dog. And what if it's the dog that first shows interest, and the person just goes along with it?

If it were true that an animal's intelligence didn't matter, it'd be okay to use children and the severely mentally disadvantaged for sexual pleasure. Just because a kid comes onto you, doesn't mean it's okay.

There's a big difference there. Dogs do have sex regularly, it's natural and necessary for the survival of their species. We know they can have sex without any sort of damage, mental or physical.

This is opposed to children or mentally disabled people having sex, where it is not natural and there are clear reasons why it is a bad idea.

uhhh, please don't have sex with animals, I can't believe this requires debate.

 

[Eatspeeple]

My morals would have to be---have fun by any means necessary, unless of course this detracts from other's enjoyment of life. If anyone really pisses you off though, they brought whatever you decide to do upon themselves. I'm a bit of a hippie so I generally do nothing. Sunshine and flowers for all!

 

[GoldenRaz]

And just to further this debate: "respect other people - or at least pretend to be a reasonable adult" is flawed in the same way in my opinion; the definitions of "respect" and "reasonable" is different from person to person and that could lead to similar occurences.

Some people have no problem with people swearing, others find it disrespectful.
Masochists find it reasonable to inflict pain to achieve pleasure, others consider it madness.

I'm not saying that it is a bad or stupid moral code, just flawed in the same way that the "golden rule" is which means that it can't be a universal standard.

There might be discrepencies about how far you go with respect and reasonable, but I can't think of a masochist scenario for it. I think the potential for total subversion is more troubling than slight variance.


Also, masochists get pleasure by receiving pain, not inflicting it - and weird as it is, it's a reasonable fetish to have.

(Damn, I'm thinking of sadists, am I not?)

But that's where the problem is: I can't consider recieving pain as a pleasure reasonable. I can understand (and respect) that someone thinks so, just not how.
Which leads me to these questions:
"Who decides what is and what isn't reasonable?" and "Who decides what is and what isn't respectful?"
That's the problem with most, if not all, moral codes, that there are no standards for the concepts "reason" and "respect".

How about, "consider other people's needs"? The golden rule is just empathy putting on airs, this is more direct.

That also sounds great at first thought, but that has some problems as well. For example:
Sadists need to inflict pain onto others to achieve pleasure. If I am to "consider other peoples needs", then I should volounteer to recieve that pain. And it becomes more complex when you consider that the sadist must consider my need of not getting hurt. Then he/she would have to refuse to hurt me, while I refuse to not get hurt. Not a very likely scenario, but possible nontheless.

And to use a less extreme example:
A businessman wants/need to earn money. To do so, he must have clients or customers. But these customers have probably been to another businessman before, who just like the first one need to earn money. They could of course become partners and work together, but some people feel the need to work alone. How should that problem be solved?

But "consider other people's needs" is a great moral code for average, day-to-day life, I'll give you that.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Well I don't want to turn this thread into this kind of argument, and you do make a valid point, but if animals can decide to have sex with each other, why can't they decide to have sex with humans?

And there are plenty of ways to tell whether or not an animal does consent to sexual activity. If your argument is that the animal is incapable of making an informed decision, wouldn't that also mean they aren't capable of deciding to have sex with animals of their own species?

And your last sentence confuses me. What are you saying would be "considered severely retarded if it were human"?

Put a dog's brain in an otherwise human body. It'd be, by human standards, severely retarded. I think we can agree that it's wrong to use someone who's severely mentally disadvantaged for the purpose of your own sexual pleasure. Same reason you don't have sexual intercourse with children.

Animals having sex with other animals is fine because it's not being coerced by something that is, by comparison, disproportionately more intelligent and powerful. A healthy dog's not disadvantaged in comparison to other healthy dogs.

I don't see how the animal's intelligence equates to a disadvantage. A human coming on to a dog doesn't have to be any different than a dog coming on to a dog. And what if it's the dog that first shows interest, and the person just goes along with it?

If it were true that an animal's intelligence didn't matter, it'd be okay to use children and the severely mentally disadvantaged for sexual pleasure. Just because a kid comes onto you, doesn't mean it's okay.

There's a big difference there. Dogs do have sex regularly, it's natural and necessary for the survival of their species. We know they can have sex without any sort of damage, mental or physical.

This is opposed to children or mentally disabled people having sex, where it is not natural and there are clear reasons why it is a bad idea.

You think the severely mentally handicapped don't have sexual urges as well? Same deal with twelve year old kids. "Naturally," they would be having sex, but we can have reasons why adults shouldn't be having sex with them. IE: taking advantage. Appeals to nature are often fallacies because natural selection is morality neutral. Nature doesn't care.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

That also sounds great at first thought, but that has some problems as well. For example:
Sadists need to inflict pain onto others to achieve pleasure. If I am to "consider other peoples needs", then I should volounteer to recieve that pain. And it becomes more complex when you consider that the sadist must consider my need of not getting hurt. Then he/she would have to refuse to hurt me, while I refuse to not get hurt. Not a very likely scenario, but possible nontheless.

And to use a less extreme example:
A businessman wants/need to earn money. To do so, he must have clients or customers. But these customers have probably been to another businessman before, who just like the first one need to earn money. They could of course become partners and work together, but some people feel the need to work alone. How should that problem be solved?

But "consider other people's needs" is a great moral code for average, day-to-day life, I'll give you that.

Considering something doesn't mean you're constantly yielding to it. It just means to be mindful. Just because someone needs to make someone scream to get off doesn't mean you have to wear a gimp suit. How you react to the person's needs is up to you.

Also, I love the vault boy avatar.

 

[GoldenRaz]

That also sounds great at first thought, but that has some problems as well. For example:
Sadists need to inflict pain onto others to achieve pleasure. If I am to "consider other peoples needs", then I should volounteer to recieve that pain. And it becomes more complex when you consider that the sadist must consider my need of not getting hurt. Then he/she would have to refuse to hurt me, while I refuse to not get hurt. Not a very likely scenario, but possible nontheless.

And to use a less extreme example:
A businessman wants/need to earn money. To do so, he must have clients or customers. But these customers have probably been to another businessman before, who just like the first one need to earn money. They could of course become partners and work together, but some people feel the need to work alone. How should that problem be solved?

But "consider other people's needs" is a great moral code for average, day-to-day life, I'll give you that.

Considering something doesn't mean you're constantly yielding to it. It just means to be mindful. Just because someone needs to make someone scream to get off doesn't mean you have to wear a gimp suit. How you react to the person's needs is up to you.

Also, I love the vault boy avatar.

Oh, I see, sorry for misinterpreting again. Then you are quite correct, that just being constantly mindful of other people's needs and acting thereafter is an excellent moral code.
Thanks for an excellent debate, good sir/lady.

Also, thanks, I tried to get a picture combining vault boy and a facepalm, and this is what I ended up with.
Yours is quite interesting as well, even if I don't know who that is. A wild guess: Freud? (your last one was him, if I'm not mistaken)