The human condition.
#1
Posted 17 April 2008 - 06:56 AM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#3
Posted 17 April 2008 - 10:44 PM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#6
Posted 18 April 2008 - 02:41 PM
A development of ethics is at the very core of what it is to be human and a responsible moral agent that is capable of engaging in complex interaction with its environment. A lack of ethics would be a degradation of the human condition.
#8
Posted 18 April 2008 - 05:29 PM
Yeah, let's not be restrictivized by linguistical fascismo! Let's makeuporate words when ever we want! Then we'll know truthalistic freedomtude!
#9
Posted 19 April 2008 - 01:34 AM
A development of ethics is at the very core of what it is to be human and a responsible moral agent that is capable of engaging in complex interaction with its environment. A lack of ethics would be a degradation of the human condition.
If ethics by design help a society develop then do they limit the abilities of individuals or does the development of society help the abilities of individuals? If so, how?
ethics limit you only by your societal standards
if you're a free thinker, and not a conformistic fascist, then nothing should limit you
So can a society exist/work if every individual of that society is looking out for themselves first and foremost? Does a society require most of the individuals belonging to that society to cooperate?
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#11
Posted 20 April 2008 - 11:25 PM
#12
Posted 21 April 2008 - 04:11 PM
I don't believe in tolerating moral relativism. It would be immoral to do so. There is something innate in all of us which says murder is wrong. If you find a credit card on the ground you'll know using it to purchase DVDs is immoral. It may not stop you from doing it, but had you been caught in the act or perhaps faced the card holder or an officer, you'd feel a sense of guilt. We understand that extreme poverty can blur ethical boundries so we've set up institution within our western countries to help combat poverty.
There are other topics such as torture. Is it right to torture an enemy for information? Is it on the same grounds as torturing a victim for pleasure? The latter would be leisure play for a psychopath with which I have no problem labeling as evil. Torture for information gain depends on a few things. I'm not sure what the statistics are on pain:information ratios. From what I can tell, the west uses relatively lax methods such as water board, loud music, and vicious threats. It's a far cry from mutilation and family slaughter. So while the society I live in may delve into torture out of desperation, I highly doubt there is any enjoyment involved. That extra sadistic bit, the needless psychotic aspect, is not added on for kicks. I'll leave it up to the professionals on this one, and trust they're not running amuck. I would like to see how much worthy information is attained through torture (not sure if we ever will see a stat). I've read all the papers on how torture merely forces a captive to confess whatever it is the captor want to hear. While this is a likely case, I'm not sure if it's a knock down argument against it. There are individuals on this planet that will not cut deals or happily wait out their existence in a cell. But again, I'm not convinced our special agents are the cowboys we make them out to be when water boarding pops up in the papers. At risk of sounding like a twat, we are as humane as one can be when dealing with torture. I think that distinction is worth noting.
Any how, moral absolutism does not help us conclude anything and is a lame duck philosophy.
Society would not be possible without ethics and ethics demands the observation of good and evil. Every society on earth has come to this conclusion, ages ago. Perhaps our ancestors slowly learned that killing your family and neighbors’, for a piece of mammoth meat, would come back to haunt them in some form. Examples: being alone in the world with no comfort; sleepless nights in fear of your own mother clubbing you over the head for not collecting enough sticks for the fire. These are just the fundamentals.
In short, society evolved as we tried to better ourselves. If you think ethics impedes social progress, then you're mildly cretinous.
This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 21 April 2008 - 04:40 PM
#13
Posted 21 April 2008 - 08:35 PM
This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 21 April 2008 - 08:37 PM
#14
Posted 21 April 2008 - 09:36 PM
Anyway, I still don't entirely understand the question that started this thread. I think ethics don't restrict the development of society; I think they're necessary for it. Without ethics we might all be brutes. And with neverending conflict, I doubt we'd develop anything.
#15
Posted 21 April 2008 - 09:49 PM
People can't even master walking to one side of a footpath. Mankind needs to be wiped out. Epic fail, mankind, epic fail.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)