|
Post by Deimos Tokarev on Jun 1, 2008 15:28:24 GMT -8
"Men were thought of as free so that they could become guilty: consequently, every action had to be thought of as willed, the origin of every action as lying in the consciousness... ...Today, when we have started to move in the reverse direction, when we immoralists especially are trying with all our might to remove the concept of guilt and the concept of punishment from the world and to purge psychology, history, nature, the social institutions and sanctions of them, there is in our eyes no more radical opposition than that of the theologians, who continue to infect the innocence of becoming with 'punishment' and 'guilt' by means of the concept of the 'moral world-order'. Christianity is a hangman's metaphysics."" The Four Great Errors -----------------------------------------------
This is a quote from Twilight of the Idols by Friedrich Nietzsche (my hero). This debate is about the essence, purpose and use of morality.
Morality is what judges everyone for their actions and intentions, good or bad
As a Nihilist, I reject all moral values whatsoever, I see them as what they are, useless, and they only hold back mankind
Nietzsche also had another intersting theory of morality, the theory of Master-Slave Morality.
Master morality is defined as what the strong willed use, what is good for the situation is what must be done. In essence it says what is beneficial by action is good, and what is detrimental in action is bad. The end justifies the means
Slave morality is defined as what the weak willed man use, what the intentions of an action are is what judges him. The weak willed man does not care whether the end of an action is beneficial or detrimental, for him it only matters what the intentions where. Nietzsche had a heavy implication that Christianity is the temptation for the weak willed.
I would have to agree with Nietzche's theory, and if i had morality, I would have to use Master morality, more logical.
|
|
|
Post by demendred on Jun 1, 2008 23:38:42 GMT -8
Morality is what seperartes mankind from the dogs. If we didn't have moraility our race would slowly destroy itself as combined effort would be limited to gangs which would in the end turn on each other. It is only through a semi universal sence of morality that society can exist.
If we didn't have morals and scupals we would all eventually be wiped out.- Wheres the logic in that Tom?
|
|
|
Post by Deimos Tokarev on Jun 2, 2008 1:42:17 GMT -8
Nietzsche also talks about that issue in Ubermensch, translated as Overman or super man
He tells us that Christianity was one of the main source of morality which has shaped the world to what it is today, but now with modernisation all the morals have been completely twisted around. And when human kind rejects these morals will the world be truly be at peace. This is part of his theory called The Death Of God, which he explains in The Gay Science
|
|
|
Post by alice on Jun 4, 2008 7:56:54 GMT -8
Morality is what seperates mankind from the dogs. I disagree. I consider my dog to be considerably more moral than Deimos. And quite a few other people, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Deimos Tokarev on Jun 4, 2008 20:36:24 GMT -8
the whole population of dogs in the world is more moral than the whole population of human kind
|
|
|
Post by demendred on Jun 5, 2008 0:26:57 GMT -8
I was using dogs as a metaphore for the animals. Also Tom, simply quoting anothers personel view is no base for an argument, either come up with a valid reason as to the uselessness of morality or concede.
|
|
|
Post by elektra on Jun 5, 2008 1:39:29 GMT -8
I agree with Demendred.
Even though throughout the world history riligion has been the root of many problems. Problems such as the holocaust, Rwandan genocide, descrimination against pagans and homosexuals. All because of a difference in opinion.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is defined as the learning process of distinguishing between virtues and vices. Virtue (Latin virtus; Greek ἀñåôÞ) is moral excellence of a person. A virtue is a trait valued as being good. Where as a Vice is a practice or habit that is considered immoral, depraved, and/or degrading in the associated society.
Look at the scum of society. Murders, rapists, child molestors, con artists, cheaters, and theives. Morals are what seperate us civilized and decent people from such scum. You think morality is pointless. Then do you really wish to end out like them... the very people that we are taught not to become?
|
|
|
Post by Deimos Tokarev on Jun 7, 2008 19:17:22 GMT -8
Im not talking about society being immoral, im talking about a complete and total state of amorality. Only logic should exist. For instance, If a man kills another, totally purposeful, sound state of mind, then I think the death penalty should be used. But only for crimes like that and higher. If we kill the offender, we save space and money in prison. Based on the principal of eye for eye. Its a balance
I think the world should be completely based on benefit, with minimum burden. Good morality or bad morality brings bias
|
|
|
Post by echo on Jun 9, 2008 2:16:01 GMT -8
But the problem with the justice system is that many innocent people a caught up and convicted for a crime they did not commit! And if they were sentenced to death by lethal injection where would that leave the rest of us? Immoral. Because we did not save an innocent man.
Believe me.... mum and i were talking about this the other night.
|
|
|
Post by Deimos Tokarev on Jun 17, 2008 19:32:26 GMT -8
that happens in every justice system, whether its the adversary system or the inquisitorial system
|
|
|
Post by siony on Jun 17, 2008 20:03:55 GMT -8
that happens in every justice system, whether its the adversary system or the inquisitorial system Then why have a system that is final, when there are sure to be flaws? That's my issue with the death penalty. Because it's true that it saves space and money, but the cost in emotional terms is too great, when a mistake is made, especially if this mistake is uncovered and the victims have to go through the whole process again. And we will have gotten rid of someone who could have been a productive member of society, one the mistake was justified. Beyond that, I'm convinced that there are ways to make even the most hardened psychopaths useful behind bars, therefore justifying their existence and the space they're taking up. That said, I really have a hard time not feeling glad when someone who harmed and killed children is put to death.
|
|
|
Post by Deimos Tokarev on Jun 17, 2008 20:11:30 GMT -8
Well maybe the death penalty is a bit harsh, it would depend on how much evidence there is, how reputable it is and how many people were killed
|
|
|
Post by siony on Jun 17, 2008 20:30:41 GMT -8
I think that morality does benefit mankind, for very logical reasons, not moral ones.
The way our brains are set up, humans are social animals. I'm saying this from a neurological standpoint. The way we're wired is for a "pack" or "herd" mentality that's more complex and more essential to us than it is for any other species.
Add to this the fact that in this day and age, not only is the knowledge of how to be completely self-sufficient in terms of getting food, shelter, etc, lost to most people, but with the current resources of the planet, it's very difficult for one person to be able to live off the land without any outside help. Even in a farming community, it's a lot easier to specialize in one thing that you have the resources to produce than it is to try and do everything yourself. If you grow potatoes, and wheat, your neighbour raises cows, a third guy grows mixed veggies and has an orchard and the last guy has chickens and then you all share/trade/buy from each other, then you all have a balanced diet and live well. Add someone with sheep and give some people knowledge of spinning and weaving and you've also got clothes.
Those are two very good arguments for living in some sort of society.
So now that we have a society, to make it run well, we need some kind of system. There are several out there. Anarchy does not work in this model. We may think it does, but if we resort to anarchy, we lose society, which has already been argued for. Whatever the system, there need to be rules. And that's where morality comes in. Morality are rules that everyone (the majority at least) agrees on so that society can function well and everyone's getting their clothing and food and everyone lives "happily ever after". Ideally. Or at least, morality being the general consensus of good behaviour, serves as a foundation for the actual laws of the society we're in. But since morality itself is in constant evolution, so are the laws.
On a very personal level, morality does also serve a purpose and a very selfish one. When you act in a fashion that you think is "moral", you feel good about yourself. Neurologically, when you help others, you are fulfilling your need to be social. This translates morally into you are making yourself a "good person".
|
|
|
Post by Deimos Tokarev on Jun 17, 2008 20:35:42 GMT -8
Morality has been useful in the past, that i agree with. It has helped fom laws that we use today. But now, these laws have screwed up the world. In my opinon, the world should try not to evolve once we reach a state of world peace and contentment, theres only so far a species can evolve, and if we go too far, we will perish.
When you say it serves people on a personal basis, that is true, but the perceptions of what other think can easily twist around those morals
|
|
|
Post by siony on Jun 17, 2008 20:45:55 GMT -8
When we reach a state of peace and contentment, Deimos, I want to be informed War and discontent seem to be our perpetual state of being, a s a society. I'm saying this from the point of view of a history teacher, though. And I think that the confrontation of different moral views is what makes them evolve. If we stagnate... There's a good book on that that you may like. The Risen Empire. It's about an immortal culture that has stagnated because since the older generation couldn't die, the younger generation couldn't impose their views and therefore bring cultural/moral evolution. Sounds like it might be your type of book. My dad loved it, I couldn't get through it.
|
|