Morals

[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.

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)

Thanks. My current avatar is Philip Zimbardo. He's not as recognizable as Freud, (which is good, because people assumed I totally subscribed to Freud. I just chose him because of my username.) but he did a variation of the Stanley Milgram experiment (which worked a little too well) and wrote a book called Lucifer Effect. Here he is speaking at TED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg

 

[ElephantGuts]

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.

Again, you bring up taking advantage. But how is it taking advantage if both parties consent to it? How is it taking advantage if the other person is the one who starts it? It's just satisfying mutual urges. Just because one person is more intelligent or mature than the other doesn't automatically mean it is taking advantage.

And you say that nature is morality neutral. Isn't this a good thing? My whole point is that morals shouldn't stop us from doing what is natural. If there is no other reason not to do it, why not? You'll need to come up with some better reasons than "it's immoral" since that's exactly the thing I am arguing against.

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

Was that some attempt at satire? Apparently this does require debate. Why do you think people shouldn't have sex with animals? Do you have a reason for this, or do you just think it's "wrong"? Because it doesn't matter if you think it's wrong, you don't have to do it. It's this kind of close-minded dismissal of other people's lifestyles that I am arguing against.

Plenty of people do have sex with animals, and people like you tell them not to for no reason at all. And I think that's despicable.

 

[VitalSigns]

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.

Again, you bring up taking advantage. But how is it taking advantage if both parties consent to it? How is it taking advantage if the other person is the one who starts it? It's just satisfying mutual urges. Just because one person is more intelligent or mature than the other doesn't automatically mean it is taking advantage.

And you say that nature is morality neutral. Isn't this a good thing? My whole point is that morals shouldn't stop us from doing what is natural. If there is no other reason not to do it, why not? You'll need to come up with some better reasons than "it's immoral" since that's exactly the thing I am arguing against.

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

Was that some attempt at satire? Apparently this does require debate. Why do you think people shouldn't have sex with animals? Do you have a reason for this, or do you just think it's "wrong"? Because it doesn't matter if you think it's wrong, you don't have to do it. It's this kind of close-minded dismissal of other people's lifestyles that I am arguing against.

Plenty of people do have sex with animals, and people like you tell them not to for no reason at all. And I think that's despicable.

Well for one Legal sex requires that whatever your having sex with can consent to the act? do you speak dog? a dog runs on instinct and will hump anything, that is not consent. Also mixing species is just disgusting and unnatural. To me it is also a form of animal abuse. the Fact that you are pro animal rape really makes me worried about the human race, I didn't think anyone thought this was a good idea.

 

[Musicfreak]

My morals are like a complex web of thoughts and ideas that I'm still tweaking and changing. In other words I'm still working on them. For the most part they are pretty flexible I'd say.

One thing off the top of my head I do hate is women who are constantly complaining about how All men see them as sex symbols and the media is sexist to them and is constantly stereotyping them and then they turn around and put makeup all over there face and tell me it's the guys job to ask them out and hold doors open for them and propose etc, etc.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

And you say that nature is morality neutral. Isn't this a good thing? My whole point is that morals shouldn't stop us from doing what is natural. If there is no other reason not to do it, why not? You'll need to come up with some better reasons than "it's immoral" since that's exactly the thing I am arguing against.

I'm going to skip past your first point, not because it isn't vital, but because we're just going to go back and forth, and, that doesn't really interest me.

The thing about nature is, it's "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." We don't live lawlessly off of the land because it's not a good deal for us. We all have that option. We could all move away from this society any time we want. We have that freedom. We don't, and for good reason.

Here's are some page on Wikipedia with more in-depth examples. Yes, it's Wikipedia, if you're a bibliography snob, bare with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Summary: natural doesn't mean right.

 

[GoldenRaz]

Thanks. My current avatar is Philip Zimbardo. He's not as recognizable as Freud, (which is good, because people assumed I totally subscribed to Freud. I just chose him because of my username.) but he did a variation of the Stanley Milgram experiment (which worked a little too well) and wrote a book called Lucifer Effect. Here he is speaking at TED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg

That video was strangely inspirational to me. The message that I got is that anyone can be good if they just want to, and that made my day. Thanks for the link.
Also, those "Stanley Milgram experiments", they are mentioned in Bioshock, aren't they? There's some diary where Tenenbaum mentions them if I'm not mistaken. Really interesting stuff nevertheless.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Thanks. My current avatar is Philip Zimbardo. He's not as recognizable as Freud, (which is good, because people assumed I totally subscribed to Freud. I just chose him because of my username.) but he did a variation of the Stanley Milgram experiment (which worked a little too well) and wrote a book called Lucifer Effect. Here he is speaking at TED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg

That video was strangely inspirational to me. The message that I got is that anyone can be good if they just want to, and that made my day. Thanks for the link.
Also, those "Stanley Milgram experiments", they are mentioned in Bioshock, aren't they? There's some diary where Tenenbaum mentions them if I'm not mistaken. Really interesting stuff nevertheless.

Uh, it may have been mentioned there. I don't recall that though.

Basically, it was an experiment to see if we'd obey authority as much as the Germans who operated the gas chambers in the Holocaust did. It was theorized that, Germans aren't more evil, they're just more obedient. They did the test in America first, and, needless to say, they didn't have to repeat the test in Germany.

Here are the important excerpts of the Stanley Milgram experiment: http://www.panarchy.org/milgram/obedience.html

 

[Flap Jack452]

"I'm a good person with good morals, we should attack everyone that doesn't believe what I do"

Cookie for whoever gets the reference.

 

[Zac_Dai]

snip

You do realize I said that I'm pro-murder and pro-torture right?
If that's your idea of neutral, I'd hate to see what happens to your car when you try to park it.

But your anti-rape so it balances out and neutral was the best word I could think of at the time.

Anyway from my observations, I get the impression that you aren't the bad guy you make out to be.

Whereas George really is a straight up evil fuck.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Well for one Legal sex requires that whatever your having sex with can consent to the act? do you speak dog? a dog runs on instinct and will hump anything, that is not consent.

As I believe I mentioned in my discussion with ThrobbingEgo, the biggest valid argument against bestiality is that there is no way to gain consent from an animal as it is defined by the law. This is true. But as I also said, it is very easy to tell whether or not an animal consents to any action, especially sex. Who is the law to say that consent can only be given verbally?

Also mixing species is just disgusting and unnatural.

There you go again. To you it is disgusting and unnatural. But you aren't God. Who are you to decide how other people live their lives based on your feelings? You aren't perfect. You are entitled to your own feelings, so if you don't want to have sex with animals, then don't. But that doesn't mean others can't.

To me it is also a form of animal abuse.

As I said it is easy to tell whether or not an animal is giving consent, so it is not necessarily rape. To say it is is just ignorant.

the Fact that you are pro animal rape really makes me worried about the human race,I didn't think anyone thought this was a good idea.

Your naivete is disturbing. There are thousands of people who have sexual relationships with animals, probably millions if you are counting those who have one-time experiences. Again, just because you feel a way about something doesn't make it right.

And there are a lot more things threatening the human race than sex with animals. In fact...how exactly does sex with animals threaten the human race? Are you making any sense at all?

 

[KamachoMcSagget]

my religeon, and putting others first

 

[VitalSigns]

Well for one Legal sex requires that whatever your having sex with can consent to the act? do you speak dog? a dog runs on instinct and will hump anything, that is not consent.

As I believe I mentioned in my discussion with ThrobbingEgo, the biggest valid argument against bestiality is that there is no way to gain consent from an animal as it is defined by the law. This is true. But as I also said, it is very easy to tell whether or not an animal consents to any action, especially sex. Who is the law to say that consent can only be given verbally?

Also mixing species is just disgusting and unnatural.

There you go again. To you it is disgusting and unnatural. But you aren't God. Who are you to decide how other people live their lives based on your feelings? You aren't perfect. You are entitled to your own feelings, so if you don't want to have sex with animals, then don't. But that doesn't mean others can't.

To me it is also a form of animal abuse.

As I said it is easy to tell whether or not an animal is giving consent, so it is not necessarily rape. To say it is is just ignorant.

the Fact that you are pro animal rape really makes me worried about the human race,I didn't think anyone thought this was a good idea.

Your naivete is disturbing. There are thousands of people who have sexual relationships with animals, probably millions if you are counting those who have one-time experiences. Again, just because you feel a way about something doesn't make it right.

And there are a lot more things threatening the human race than sex with animals. In fact...how exactly does sex with animals threaten the human race? Are you making any sense at all?

I'm not even going to argue this with you, You wanna fuck an animal, be my guest.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I'm not even going to argue this with you, You wanna fuck an animal, be my guest.

I take it that's your way of saying you have no more arguments to make?

I'm going to skip past your first point, not because it isn't vital, but because we're just going to go back and forth, and, that doesn't really interest me.

First of all I must ask, but by saying "that doesn't really interest me" do you mean "You're right and I have nothing else to say against it without making myself sound insane"? I mean no offense, if anything I respect you more for ending that particular discussion. Some stubborn people refuse to give up and will continue arguing beyond logic or reason.

The thing about nature is, it's "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." We don't live lawlessly off of the land because it's not a good deal for us. We all have that option. We could all move away from this society any time we want. We have that freedom. We don't, and for good reason.

Here's are some page on Wikipedia with more in-depth examples. Yes, it's Wikipedia, if you're a bibliography snob, bare with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Summary: natural doesn't mean right.

And it's true that natural doesn't necessarily mean right. But it's also no reason to hate something if there is nothing else wrong with it. I wasn't saying that being natural makes something good, just that it's good that nature is morality neutral. Since as I said I think the idea of morality is useless and shouldn't be taken seriously.

And for the record, I love Wikipedia and I also get nervous about bringing it into a debate. Oftentimes the other person will attack its supposed lack of credibility as a substitute for making an actual point.

 

[VitalSigns]

I'm not even going to argue this with you, You wanna fuck an animal, be my guest.

I take it that's your way of saying you have no more arguments to make?

I'm going to skip past your first point, not because it isn't vital, but because we're just going to go back and forth, and, that doesn't really interest me.

First of all I must ask, but by saying "that doesn't really interest me" do you mean "You're right and I have nothing else to say against it without making myself sound insane"? I mean no offense, if anything I respect you more for ending that particular discussion. Some stubborn people refuse to give up and will continue arguing beyond logic or reason.

The thing about nature is, it's "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." We don't live lawlessly off of the land because it's not a good deal for us. We all have that option. We could all move away from this society any time we want. We have that freedom. We don't, and for good reason.

Here's are some page on Wikipedia with more in-depth examples. Yes, it's Wikipedia, if you're a bibliography snob, bare with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Summary: natural doesn't mean right.

And it's true that natural doesn't necessarily mean right. But it's also no reason to hate something if there is nothing else wrong with it. I wasn't saying that being natural makes something good, just that it's good that nature is morality neutral. Since as I said I think the idea of morality is useless and shouldn't be taken seriously.

And for the record, I love Wikipedia and I also get nervous about bringing it into a debate. Oftentimes the other person will attack its supposed lack of credibility as a substitute for making an actual point.

What I'm saying is that the subject matter genuinely makes me uncomfortable, and Sometimes the "gut" feeling that something is wrong is enough for me. I won't argue this because you have your views and I have mine. But you will never convince the average person that this is anything but Immoral and wreckless.

 

[ElephantGuts]

But you will never convince the average person that this is anything but Immoral and wreckless.

What a gracious loser you are.

 

[VitalSigns]

But you will never convince the average person that this is anything but Immoral and wreckless.

What a gracious loser you are.

I know you get some sort of sick humor and satisfaction from the reactions you get, but honestly It's really childish.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

First of all I must ask, but by saying "that doesn't really interest me" do you mean "You're right and I have nothing else to say against it without making myself sound insane"? I mean no offense, if anything I respect you more for ending that particular discussion. Some stubborn people refuse to give up and will continue arguing beyond logic or reason.

Not really. I just prefer picking my battles to smashing my keyboard in a game of verbal tennis. (Wow, horrible mixed metaphor on my part.)

All the points I made still stand. I don't feel I need to go back and restate them.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

What I'm saying is that the subject matter genuinely makes me uncomfortable, and Sometimes the "gut" feeling that something is wrong is enough for me. I won't argue this because you have your views and I have mine. But you will never convince the average person that this is anything but Immoral and wreckless.

I really don't like the idea of calling something immoral just because you don't like it. Here's why: You're making morality completely arbitrary. "I don't like this, therefore it's immoral." If you believe it's wrong then you shouldn't make it taboo just because it's a taboo.

I agree that bestiality is wrong, but there are better reasons to be had than "I said so."

 

[ElephantGuts]

But you will never convince the average person that this is anything but Immoral and wreckless.

What a gracious loser you are.

I know you get some sort of sick humor and satisfaction from the reactions you get, but honestly It's really childish.

Um...what? Reactions to what? Should I even bother asking what you're talking about?

Not really. I just prefer picking my battles to smashing my keyboard in a game of verbal tennis. (Wow, horrible mixed metaphor on my part.)

All the points I made still stand. I don't feel I need to go back and restate them.

Well yeah, but the points you made were, well...disproved. You made them and I made a counterpoint to them, proving that they're...wrong. At that point you're left to argue why they are right or admit that they are wrong. Restating them would not solve anything.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Not really. I just prefer picking my battles to smashing my keyboard in a game of verbal tennis. (Wow, horrible mixed metaphor on my part.)

All the points I made still stand. I don't feel I need to go back and restate them.

Well yeah, but the points you made were, well...disproved. You made them and I made a counterpoint to them, proving that they're...wrong. At that point you're left to argue why they are right or admit that they are wrong. Restating them would not solve anything.

I disagree.