|
|
Post by mrmystic on Sept 3, 2018 19:27:09 GMT -5
Are you implying that we don't create laws and a system of ethics based on actual scientific, observable fact? Like, as in- understanding how human beings and the world around us functions, and how our actions have an impact on it? We don't make laws based on 'feels'. I think any conflation between law and ethics on a rational (i.e. pure logic) basis is on very shaky ground. 'Legal' does not mean 'right' even in Western societies. Mickey Mouse's copyright wasn't extended due to any real conception of ethics, and the Constitution didn't prevent Americans from being interned in WW2 for having the wrong shape eyes.
Ethics are something developed entirely by 'feels'; or your gut feeling of what is right and wrong. Which is in turn the result of cultural indoctrination. You believe things are bad or good because that is how you are raised and socialised to see them. Laws can sometimes be generated as a result of those feels, creating a new norm and therefore a feedback loop for further indoctrination of future generations in it as an ethical position. But bad laws can equally be generated by rich and powerful people to benefit themselves, or by a political faction for temporary gain, or a dozen other reasons; and those too can end up feeding back in the same way to alter contemporary ethics.
I'm not picking up on this to say that those ethics are 'bad', because they're not; anymore than any other ethic or belief is intrisically good or bad. I'm firmly of the belief however that only by understanding the shallow belief based origin of our ethical systems can they have any true value. It permits you to turn around and say, "I hold this ethical conviction not because I have been socialised from birth to believe in it; but because I comprehend and still choose to hold it!" It's the difference between a religious belief dogmatically repeated without question, and a personal conviction, if you get my drift?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 19:27:40 GMT -5
Sounds like every administration since... ever. It's not that he does it... it's the quantity...
It's like comparing a monkey throwing shit to a manure spreader.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Sept 3, 2018 19:49:21 GMT -5
Morality is objective? Prove it. Bag me up an ounce of morality. Empirically or rationally demonstrate its existence separate from humanity. If it's an immutable law of the Universe (unlike those systems of belief you're denigrating), you should be able to do so. So, you're okay with raping kids. All I needed to know. The only thing that keeps you from doing so is a man in a uniform of some sort may kill or capture you and put you in a cage. I don't think that's what anybody here is really saying, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by motleycruesader on Sept 3, 2018 19:51:35 GMT -5
So, you're okay with raping kids. All I needed to know. The only thing that keeps you from doing so is a man in a uniform of some sort may kill or capture you and put you in a cage. I don't think that's what anybody here is really saying, is it? If you believe morals are subjective, the only thing keeping you in line is a fear of consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Sept 3, 2018 19:53:10 GMT -5
I don't think that's what anybody here is really saying, is it? If you believe morals are subjective, the only thing keeping you in line is a fear of consequences. Is that necessarily true though? Couldn't someone believe that morals in general are subjective, but still hold their own set of morals that they follow, not based on fear of consequences? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 19:54:09 GMT -5
If you believe morals are subjective, the only thing keeping you in line is a fear of consequences.
I think that says more about you than other people. Cause that's a mighty big assumption you got there.
|
|
|
|
Post by motleycruesader on Sept 3, 2018 20:00:31 GMT -5
If you believe morals are subjective, the only thing keeping you in line is a fear of consequences.
I think that says more about you than other people. Cause that's a mighty big assumption you got there.
Assessment* Because what else is there? If you don't have real moral standards, and they're not instilled as an objective point of reality- you're just working within your comfort zone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 20:09:32 GMT -5
Assessment* Because what else is there? If you don't have real moral standards, and they're not instilled as an objective point of reality- you're just working within your comfort zone.
Pretty much. I can say that there are people on this forum who can attest to my lack of morals, and morals are most certainly not objective.
So, yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmystic on Sept 3, 2018 20:12:45 GMT -5
I don't think that's what anybody here is really saying, is it? If you believe morals are subjective, the only thing keeping you in line is a fear of consequences. It's not a question of belief. Until morals are demonstrably proven to exist externally to mankind (by rational or empirical means), they are objective. Like it or not. It's something any person with a basic philosophy class under their belt knows; yet you don't see many would be philosophers chasing women round the campus (or at least, not because of their knowledge ethics is subjective).
People choose to believe things all the time. To bring things full circle, by all means prefer your society, your ethical constructs, your way of doing things to those of others. It's natural and programmed in. There's nothing wrong with it. But be aware of their transient, imperfect, subjective nature before attempting to force others to follow them also.
To take a real life example relevant to wargaming; we treasure copyright as a concept these days in the West. The Chinese do not, quite the reverse. Culturally, they are much more aligned with the belief held by many in Western society two hundred years ago that it's an intrinsically deformed idea. Yet we believe now that it is moral because of the feedback mentioned earlier between law and ethics; whilst they currently have no such cultural preprogramming.
The question must thus be whether or not it is right or necessary for Western culture to be hammering down the Chinese cultural doorframe to try and compel it to submit to the (relatively newly evolved) Western view of things. It is but one facet of the West trying to 'fix' the rest of the world by forcing it to conform to Western social and cultural constructs, and quite a conscious one at that.
Is the West wrong to do so? No, because ethics are subjective. It's not 'right' or 'wrong'. Cultural imperialism is a recurring facet of any interaction between stronger and weaker cultures; however you might try to restrain it. It's quite natural. But I believe the equivalent value of what is being inevitably erased should never be lost sight of; and the desire to 'fix' other cultures should be constantly questioned and re-evaluated for necessity. By all means erase a cultural legacy of paedophilia; I don't think many will miss that when it is gone. But do we need to enslave every other country to say, the 9-5 five day week and business suits?
Variety is the spice of life, and it is has been repeatedly shown that different cultures conceptualise and problem solve in different ways. By making the world a more monochrome place you only reduce the real potential of humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by motleycruesader on Sept 3, 2018 20:24:45 GMT -5
Variety is the spice of life, and it is has been repeatedly shown that different cultures conceptualise and problem solve in different ways. By making the world a more monochrome place you only reduce the real potential of humanity. Some things can be retained of cultures. But the barbaric superstitions and murderous practices must be removed. Otherwise, 'variety' is pointless and worthless. The civilized world has to spend too much time failing at helping backwards cultures. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 20:26:47 GMT -5
Some things can be retained of cultures. But the barbaric superstitions and murderous practices must be removed. Otherwise, 'variety' is pointless and worthless. The civilized world has to spend too much time failing at helping backwards cultures.
I'm not sure you realize this but a lot of other cultures view the US as one of the backward ones...
|
|
|
|
Post by motleycruesader on Sept 3, 2018 20:27:39 GMT -5
Some things can be retained of cultures. But the barbaric superstitions and murderous practices must be removed. Otherwise, 'variety' is pointless and worthless. The civilized world has to spend too much time failing at helping backwards cultures.
I'm not sure you realize this but a lot of other cultures view the US as one of the backward ones...
Is it the one that bans pocket knives, or the one that lost a war to flightless birds? Or the on that believes sex without a condom is 'rape'? You'll have to excuse me if I don't see their opinion as very valid. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 20:37:46 GMT -5
Is it the one that bans pocket knives, or the one that lost a war to flightless birds? Or the on that believes sex without a condom is 'rape'? You'll have to excuse me if I don't see their opinion as very valid. Wow, I didn;t think that anyone was actually as bad as Dakka's mods claimed.
This is gonna be fun.
How about the one that you were so scared of you waited for the Russians to take the brunt of the casualties before you landed? Or the one that bailed your ass out several times in your history despite you're apparent arrogant dismissal of their capital as an open sewer?
Hey, I know, how about the one where you supported terrorism against your own supposed allies? Those pub bombings didn't fund themselves, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmystic on Sept 3, 2018 20:44:25 GMT -5
I think I just realised who I'm talking to.
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." -Zapp Brannigan
|
|
|
|
Post by motleycruesader on Sept 3, 2018 20:52:03 GMT -5
Wow, I didn;t think that anyone was actually as bad as Dakka's mods claimed.
This is gonna be fun.
How about the one that you were so scared of you waited for the Russians to take the brunt of the casualties before you landed? Or the one that bailed your ass out several times in your history despite you're apparent arrogant dismissal of their capital as an open sewer?
Hey, I know, how about the one where you supported terrorism against your own supposed allies? Those pub bombings didn't fund themselves, after all.
You mean the ones that still laugh about us stacking hundreds of thousands of bodies in a pointless war saying we 'lost to a bunch of farmers'... but they lost an empire? "Allies"- the Soviets have only ever been allies to traitorous Academics that force-feed propaganda. We just didn't want the bloodshed. And no one's as bad as Dakka's mods say. It's really just a bunch of sensitive crybabies that report posts they can't argue with. (And I am being a bit of a shit here. I won't say 'my country is the greatest', but I'd rather not live somewhere else.) |
|
.png)